Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

LAW CASES (OBJECTIONABLE DETAILS).

Mr. FLANAGAN: I beg to present a petition from residents in the Clayton Division of Manchester against the publication in the Press of objectionable details taken from Law Court cases.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Rawmarsh Urban District Council Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Caledonian Insurance Company Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Chesterfield Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered:—

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Croydon Corporation Bill [Lords],

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill [Lords],

Swanage Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],

West Bromwich Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

North Berwick Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received any information as to the proceedings at the meeting of the Third International at Moscow; and if he can state what steps will be taken to counteract the methods employed by the British Communist party of working through the Indian students at the English universities and of sending out to India expert propagandists in the guise of British workers going out there to various ports, and of conducting an extensive and active anti-militarist propaganda among the British and native troops in India?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before this question is answered, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you whether it is in order for an hon. and gallant Member to make a statement under the guise of putting a question to the Minister, as in this particular case?

Mr. SPEAKER: I presume that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has satisfied himself as to the foundation of his question.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Accounts of certain proceedings at the meeting in question have been published. With regard to the second portion of the question, I would assure my hon. and gallant Friend that if any reliable information of the nature suggested is received, suitable action will be taken. But he will, I am sure, not expect me to advertise the exact steps that might in this event be adopted.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have His Majesty's Government any objection to anti-militarist propaganda?

Earl WINTERTON: Certainly among the troops. It is one of the first principles of government to prevent such propaganda.

BERARS (ADMINISTRATION).

Lieut.- Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any information to
the effect that the Nizam of Hyderabad has commissioned an eminent Indian lawyer, Sir Ali Imam, to come to this country in order to make representations with a view to securing acceptance of the proposal to return the administration of the Berars to the Nizam of Hyderabad; and whether he proposes to receive representations made in such a manner?

Earl WINTERTON: I have seen suggestions to that effect in some Indian newspapers, but I have no official information; nor, in so far as the question were one of the private proceedings of the ruler of an Indian State, would the Secretary of State be concerned with it. But it is obvious that no representations will be considered by my Noble Friend, unless they be made in the constitutional manner through the Government of India.

DAMAGE TO MONUMENTS.

Sir C. YATE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the attack by certain national volunteers, carrying a national flag in one hand and a sledgehammer in the other, on the Holwell monument in Calcutta, erected by Lord Curzon, at his own expense, when Viceroy of India, to the memory of all those who perished in the Black Hole; whether, considering that this action is apparently a reflex of the attacks on the Lawrence statue at Lahore and may rapidly extend to attacks on all memorials throughout India, he will state what steps have been taken to put a stop to this movement; and whether these national volunteers have been proclaimed an illegal association?

Earl WINTERTON: I have seen reports in the Press as to attempts to damage this monument. They include a statement that two men were sentenced to one year's and six months' imprisonment respectively, while a third was discharged, after giving an undertaking of good behaviour. No report has been received as to any proclamation of unlawful associations by the Government of Bengal in connection with these incidents.

Sir C. YATE: Does the Under-Secretary not think that there is great danger of this agitation spreading, and is it not necessary that some special steps should be taken to protect these ancient monuments?

Earl WINTERTON: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that steps are being taken and, as he will see from my answer, those who have attempted to cause trouble and mischief in regard to these various memorials have been dealt with severely.

STUDENTS, GREAT BRITAIN (HOSTELS).

Mr. GILBERT: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his Department maintain or assist any hostels or homes for Indian students in this country; if so, will he state how many are so helped and where they are situated; how many students are housed in them; if they are restricted to only law and medical students; can he state what method is adopted to attract students to such homes; and what is the approximate annual cost of the same to his Department?

Earl WINTERTON: No hostels or homes for Indian students in this country are maintained, assisted, or controlled by the India Office. One such hostel is maintained and controlled by the High Commissioner for India on behalf of the Government of India. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT information regarding this institution which has been furnished to me by the High Commissioner.

Following is the information referred to:

There is only one hostel for Indian students maintained by the Government of India which is under the supervisory control of the High Commissioner for India. This is situated at 21, Cromwell Road, South Kensington, and provides accommodation for 33 men. The accommodation provided is available for any Indian who is a bona fide student, and is not restricted to any particular class. The hostel was established to provide for the accommodation of students on their first arrival, until they are able to find permanent lodgings. Full particulars regarding the accommodation available are given in the Handbook for Indian Students," pages 6 and 7, a publication of the High Commissioner for India, whilst the Advisory Committees in India are also in a position to supply full information about this hostel to students about to proceed to England who consult
them. The approximate amount disbursed through the office of the High Commissioner for India, from Indian revenues in respect of the hostel was, for 1922–23, £2,300, as compared with £2,900 for 1921–22, and £3,700 for 1920–21.

Oral Answers to Questions — LASCAR SEAMEN'S HOMES (BRITISH PORTS).

Mr. GILBERT: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what progress has been made as regards improving the homes for lascar seamen in London and other ports in this country; whether any result has come from the conference of shipowners called by his Department some months ago; and can he make any statement on the subject?

Earl WINTERTON: The shipping companies concerned have undertaken to send lascars only to homes approved by the India Office at ports in the United Kingdom where such homes exist. The Strangers' Home for Asiatics in London and the Sailors' Home at Glasgow have, after full inquiries, been approved for this purpose. When these homes are full their superintendents will arrange for the provision of other accommodation at homes which they have found to be satisfactory. At Cardiff arrangements have been made for the periodical inspection of a privately owned boarding-house on behalf of the India Office, and for its recognition so long as the inspection reports are satisfactory. No need has been found for making arrangements of the kind at other ports.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Does that also apply to the case of the Arabs?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for India is only concerned with the arrangements for Indian Nationals. These arrangements are partly the outcome of an inspection made by myself about six months ago. What is being done in the case of Arab seamen I do not know, as they come under the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office.

Mr. SHINWELL: Has any objection been taken to the housing of lascars in sailors' homes which are occupied by white seamen?

Earl WINTERTON: All these homes are more or less exclusively set apart for the reception of Asiatics, certainly in London, and I believe in the case of the other two, but I would like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA (MOTOR CARS PURCHASE).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an official has been sent home from Dar-es-Salaam to purchase motor cars for the local government; whether, in that case, he will state why such purchases could not have been carried out by the Crown agents; and whether the latter, in a case of this nature, receive a commission to cover their expenses?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No official has been sent to this country by the Government of the Tanganyika. Territory for the purpose stated. The Tanganyika Government has decided to purchase certain new motor cars and lorries. These purchases are being made through the Crown agents for the Colonies in the usual way, but advantage is being taken of the presence in this country, on leave, of the Tanganyika Government transport officer to obtain his advice upon the types of vehicle best suited to local conditions. The Crown agents are authorisd to charge a commission of 2½ per cent. of the net f.o.b. cost upon motor vehicles purchased by them on behalf of Colonial Governments. This commission goes to meet, but does not cover, the cost of the Crown agents' expenses.

Colonel NEWMAN: Can we be certain that these motor cars and lorries will be British, and American?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly as to the lorries, but I do not know whether there may not be certain Fords which are necessary. Very often they are a type of car which are absolutely necessary for certain purposes.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that there are a number of British makers producing cars in this country capable of doing all the work that Ford cars can do?

Oral Answers to Questions — EXECUTIONS, CALABAR.

Mr. WEBB: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to inform the House as to the circumstances under which 14 persons were hanged in public at Oron, Calabar, and 12 hanged at Calabar; whether these persons were allowed counsel at their trial and found guilty by a jury; whether the execution of these sentences was specifically sanctioned by the officer administering the government in Executive Council in accordance with the Colonial Regulations; whether the practice of executions in public is approved by the Government; and what directions have been given to Governors of non-responsible-government Colonies with regard to the carrying out of capital sentences for the future?

Mr. ORMSBY - GORE: Eighteen murderers were hanged in public at Oron, in the Eket district of the Calabar Province, in April, 1919, namely, eight on the 22nd of April and 10 on the 23rd. The Eket district was at the end of 1918 in a very unsettled state following the influenza epidemic, which was attributed to witchcraft, and a large number of murders had taken place. Early in 1919 a military patrol was despatched to the district, order was restored, and many persons suspected of being concerned in the murders were arrested. Sixty-three were tried in the provincial court of the Calabar Province by the Resident or by the District Officer, sitting with native assessors, and as a result 51 were convicted of murder or offences connected with the murders. I will circulate the remainder of the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WEBB: Were these natives allowed to be represented by counsel at the trial, and were they tried by a jury? Why is it that the Colonial Office is unaware of these things?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I gather that the only Report we then had was considered sufficient. It was a report from the Colony on the subject, dealing with it generally, and not in detail. We have since got a detailed Report which was asked for later. I understand that there is no trial by jury system in that part of Nigeria.

Mr. WEBB: What about counsel?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think counsel were so employed, so far as I can gather.

Major PAGET: Is it not a fact that, unless these executions in witchcraft cases take place in public, the natives refuse to believe that the witch doctors have been killed?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Cases of that kind have arisen, particularly in the heart of tropical Africa. The natives often believe that somebody else is substituted.

Mr. LINFIELD: Were these men prevented from employing counsel?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think so. The question was as to whether they had counsel in this particular case.

Following is the remainder of the answer:

Twenty were sentenced to death for murder, but, in the case of two, the officer administering the Government in Executive Council commuted the death sentence. Counsel and juries are not employed in Nigerian Provincial Courts for reasons which are fully explained in Sir Frederick Lugard's Report on the Amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria (Command 468, page 23), but in all these 18 cases the death sentences were confirmed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria after reviewing the proceedings at the trials, and were specifically sanctioned by the officer administering the Government in Executive Council after each case had been separately considered. The form of order for execution in use in Nigeria provides that the condemned person shall be executed at a time and place to be appointed by the Resident of the Province. The Resident ordered that the executions should take place at Oron, which had been the scene of so many murders, and as there is no prison there the executions took place in public, a special scaffold being erected for the purpose. In any case it was desirable to hang these murderers with some publicity in order to convince the primitive natives of the locality that they had been executed, and had not escaped punishment by the exercise of magical powers. The Nigerian Government has now issued instructions that no execution shall be carried out in public in future without the express sanction of the Governor. The normal practice in the Colonies is to
execute capital sentences in the prisons and no special directions are considered necessary. As regards executions at Calabar, seven murderers were hanged there on 29th May, 1919, and nine more on the following day. I can ask for a special Report on those executions if the hon. Member so desires, but it is probable that they were carried out in the prison in the normal way.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. BECKER: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how Palestine is at present being administered; who appoints the officials and from whom do they get their authority and instructions; is it His Majesty's Government's intention to form a self-determination government; and can he give his assurance that Palestine will be administered by British authority and Palestine governed as a Crown Colony?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Palestine is being administered by a High Commissioner acting under the instructions of His Majesty's Government. The High Commissioner is appointed by His Majesty the King. The other officials of the Palestine administration are appointed by the High Commissioner subject to the direction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. They are under the orders of the High Commissioner. In regard to the last two parts of the question the policy of His Majesty's Government was defined in Command Paper No. 1700 which was laid in this House in June, 1922.

BRITISH ADVANCES (REPAYMENT).

Mr. BECKER: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the decision arrived at by the Palestine Arab Congress when it was resolved to reject any loan for Palestine; and can he state how the money advanced by Crown agents to Palestine will be repaid, seeing that no loan will be floated?

MR. ORMSBY-GORE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Baronet the Member for Orkney on the 25th June regarding the status of the Arab Congress referred to. The reso-
lutions of the Congress are not binding upon the Palestine administration. I do not accept the assumption made by the hon. Member in the closing words of his question.

JEWISH IMMIGRATION.

Mr. BURGESS: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of Jews who have emigrated to Palestine during the last 12 months from English-speaking countries; and will he give the total number of Jews who have settled in that period?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The number of Jews who emigrated to Palestine from English-speaking countries during the year 1922 was 200, out of a total of 7,844, and for the months January to May, 1923, the number was 34, out of a total of 4,088.

Major PAGET: Can the hon. Gentleman say what cost these Jews have entailed on the British taxpayer?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: None at all. The whole cost of the emigration was borne entirely by the Jews themselves.

Major PAGET: I mean the cost of holding the country for their spiritual home?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The object of our being in Palestine is not merely to hold it for a spiritual home, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman calls it, for the Jews. There are other reasons.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

RETRENCHED CIVIL SERVANTS.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any compensation, in addition to the ordinary retiring allowance, will be granted to civil servants who have lost their employment on being retrenched from the Kenya service before reaching retiring age?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Additional compensation in respect of abolition of office is not proposed, and it has not been customary in East Africa.

Sir R. HAMILTON: May I ask if these officials are being treated on a different basis from retired civil servants on the West Coast?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I cannot say off-hand. But in view of the necessity for cutting down the Kenya Budget by so large a sum in one year, I agree it puts it quite out of the question that any additional sum should be given in these cases.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is it not a standing rule throughout the British Empire that when a civil servant's office is abolished, he should receive some compensation in respect of the original office?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, he receives compensation. But this is a question of additional compensation, and I am informed that it has not been customary in any case in East Africa.

Sir C. YATE: What compensation do they receive?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think it is based on one-sixtieth of the salary for so many years' service.

Mr. PRINGLE: Do they receive as liberal terms as the manager of the. British Empire Exhibition?

REFORMED CONSTITUTION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether conversations between the India Office and the Colonial Office with relation to the Kenya Settlement have yet been renewed since each Department has heard the views of the various deputations now in this country from Kenya?

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the question of the reformed Constitution of Kenya Colony has yet been settled?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I cannot say more at the moment than that the whole matter is engaging the close attention of my Noble Friend the Secretary of State, and that I hope to be in a position to make a statement in the Debate on the Colonial Office Vote.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will that statement be the result of consultations with the India Office?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Most certainly. My Noble Friend and the Secretary of
State for India are in frequent personal communication, and I shall not be able to make the statement until the matter has been before the Cabinet.

SLAVE RAIDERS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received any report from the officer administering the Government of Kenya in reply to the inquiry as to whether British patrols had captured men raiding on the Abyssinian border for slaves, and whether the captures included rifles with the Abyssinian Government stamp on them?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir. There has been barely time for a reply, even if there has been no need to refer to officers serving on the frontier.

KIKUYU DELEGATES.

Mr. LINFIELD: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a letter was despatched to Sir Charles Bowring, Acting Administrator of Kenya Colony, and dated 29th May, signed by the president of the Kikuyu Association and others, asking for permission for two Kikuyu delegates to proceed to England in order to state the native side of the Kenya question; and whether, seeing that this request was made by three well known chiefs and was entirely voluntary, he will say why this permission was not granted?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is clearly desirable that a decision on the Kenya question should not be delayed unnecessarily by the despatch of fresh delegations, and in this case the Acting Governor has reported that the request of the Kikuyu elders for permission to send a deputation was withdrawn at a meeting at which two of the leading elders were present.

Mr. LINFIELD: Would any difficulty have ensued, seeing that this letter was dated 29th May?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It was hoped that the Kenya discussions would have been over some time before now, but they are rapidly approaching a conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL RAILWAYS (CONSTRUCTION).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what Department is responsible for advising the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to whether Colonial railways should be constructed departmentally or by private enterprise?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In arriving at a decision on a question of policy of this kind the Secretary of State, would consider the opinions of the Colonial Government concerned and the advice given by the officers of his own Department, including the Commercial Adviser to the Secretary of State. He would probably also consult the Crown Agents for the Colonies.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the terms of reference of the Committee which he has announced will be set up to consider the question of the construction, by private enterprise or otherwise, of the African railways will include consideration as to the method of building the projected railways in Kenya, or is the decision of the Secretary of State that these railways shall be constructed departmentally to be looked upon as final.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative.
The terms of reference of the Committee are as fellow:
To consider whether, and, if so, what, measures could be taken to encourage private enterprise in the development of the British Dependencies in East and West tropical Africa, with special reference to existing and projected schemes of transportation; and to report to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the official statement that the supervising railway staff in Kenya available locally is well able to carry through the work of railway construction now planned, he will state what the normal work of such staff is and how it comes about that they have sufficient time to devote to extra very comprehensive duties which in no way come into the sphere of activity for which they were engaged?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The circumstances were fully explained in my written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne on the 3rd July. For the senior staff of an important railway it is essential that the best possible men should be obtained. When really good men have been obtained it is not unreasonable to find that their energies are equal to a wider activity than that afforded by the ordinary duties of their posts. Apart from that, while I cannot say that the terms of appointment of either of the officers immediately concerned expressly covered duties in connection with construction, I am not prepared to admit that such duties are in any way foreign to the scope of their employment.

Captain EVANS: Is it not correct that Mr. Hammond in his Report stated that they never made the slightest attempt to train their own technical staff, and that they imported the necessary additions from overseas, mainly from India? In view of that fact, is there any reason for believing that the present staff have any technical qualifications for carrying out the work of local railway construction?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that would lead to a debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can, before the Colonial Office Vote is taken, lay Papers concerning the negotiations with the British South Africa Company concerning Southern and Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I hope that it may be possible to lay Papers within the next few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position relative to the grant of constitutional reforms to Ceylon; and whether despatches outlining the new constitution have yet been sent out to the Colony?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Papers on this subject have recently been presented to
Parliament. The Secretary of State has addressed despatches to the Governor which will be laid before the Legislative Council on their receipt in Ceylon, and will subsequently be published here.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are the papers recently published the last that have passed on this question? Has any decision been come to by the Government to modify the proposal in any particular direction?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will this House be required to ratify this constitution or to approve of it in any way? If so, will care be taken that we have an opportunity to discuss the matter on the Colonial Office Vote?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It will be in order to discuss it on that Vote. These modifications in Colonial constitutions are always made by Letters Patent and are not the subject of legislation in this House. They are thus more easily modified. There are a good many of these cases in the West Indies and many changes are being made. In reply to the first supplementary question, certain changes have been made in the original proposal as the result of representations we have received. I was under the impression that a further document, in addition to the one referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, was laid at the end of last week. If it was not, it will be laid this week. The final despatch is, I think, in draft, but before it is issued it will have to be laid in Ceylon.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we have an undertaking that before the Letters Patent are issued, there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think I am correct in saying that there is no possibility of the Letters Patent being issued before the Colonial Vote is taken the week after next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-KING PREMPEH.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that a Somaliland chief who had been deported to the Seychelles was allowed to return
to his country in May, 1922, upon surety being provided by the relatives, His Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider favourably a proposal for permitting the early return to Ashanti of King Prempeh under similar sureties?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The question of Prempeh's return has recently been discussed verbally with the Governor of the Gold Coast, and the Secretary of State concurred with him in thinking that Prempeh's return to Ashanti could not be sanctioned at present. I may add that the Somaliland chief to whom my hon. Friend refers was not released, but is still detained in Seychelles.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Are not the Government showing unnecessary timidity in regard to the return of King Prempeh?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I happen to have discussed this matter personally with the late Commissioner for Ashanti, who has just concluded his term of service. I have also discussed it with the new Commissioner who is going out. I shall get a further Report from him on political conditions in Ashanti before we take any further action in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA RAILWAY.

Captain A. EVANS: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. Couper, formerly general manager of the Uganda Railway, has been superseded; and, if so, for what reasons?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir. Mr. Couper applied for permission to retire on the pension for which he was qualified in respect of his 25 years' colonial service. His East African service amounted to 20 years, which, under the Regulations, renders an East African official eligible for voluntary retirement.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will present copies of such documents as are desired by the Irish Government to them, and thereafter require all
documents and records at present in Ireland essential for the British people in England, Scotland, and Wales in respect to historical, industrial, legal, and property rights duly placed in the Public Records Office in London?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir, I am not aware of any sufficient ground for such an arrangement, which I think would be likely to impose grave disadvantages on British subjects in Ireland without any corresponding advantages to residents in this country. Provision for the transfer of the Public Record Office in Dublin to the then Provisional Government was made in Part I of the Schedule of the Order in Council dated 1st April, 1922.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: Will not the Government take steps, in the case of State documents which are really of no use in Ireland, to bring them over here, for safe custody in the Record Office?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If there are such documents which would be more important over here than over there, and have not been destroyed, that would obviously be taken into consideration, but I am not aware that there are any such documents left.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Are we really to understand that all the State documents from the time of Henry II are destroyed?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Oh, no, not all.

COMPENSATION AWARDS AND DECREES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the fact that £7,000,000 was voted recently by the Dail for the compensation of injuries to persons and property in the Irish Free State, he has been able to ascertain whether the awards of the Wood-Renton Commission, as published in the "Dublin Gazette" up to the end of May of this year, have yet been met?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir; the awards gazetted up to the end of May have not yet been fully met. I have recently had the advantage of a discussion on this subject with members of the Free State Government, and I hope to have an opportunity of making a statement when the Colonial Office Vote is under discussion in the House.

Sir W. DAVISON: Has not the hon. Gentleman repeatedly told us that they would be paid by the beginning of July, and how is it that a further delay has now occurred?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That would take me some time to explain. I was over in Dublin on Saturday, and went through the machinery of the various Commissions, and I should have something to say on that.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the statement in the first part of my question, that £7,000,000 has been voted, correct, and, if so, why have not the awards been met?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It has been voted, but it was suddenly found that it was not at present to the credit of the Government of Ireland.

Colonel NEWMAN: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, with the consent of the British Government, the Wood-Renton Commission have imposed a rebuilding Clause in the majority of the awards which they have hitherto made; that in the Land Purchase Bill which is now passing through the Dail the Free State Government is taking power to take over any land; and, since this power, if exercised, would render the rebuilding of his house by the owner of demesne or untenanted land useless where the Free State Government intend to exercise their right of acquisition, will he use his endeavours to have the rebuilding Clause struck out and the sum allowed for in the price at which the land in question is being acquired from the present owner?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In reply to the first part of the question, while it is the case that the Wood-Renton Commission has attached a reinstatement condition to a considerable proportion of the awards made by them in respect of the destruction of or injury to buildings, I understand that, generally speaking, the condition is attached only to a portion, and in very many cases to a small portion, of the award. In reply to the second part, Clause 21 (3) empowers the Land Commission to acquire, by agreement or at a fair valuation, and subject to an appeal to the judicial Commissioner, land such as park or demesne land, which is normally excepted from the operation of the Bill, in cases where they certify that such land
is required for the purpose of relieving congestion. In reply to the third part, if it should happen that, in pursuance of this provision, the Land Commission should certify that they require demesne or untenanted land on which is situated a building in respect of which an award of compensation subject to reinstatement has been issued, then I am advised that such an award, whether or not the condition has been carried out, is an obvious element in the fair valuation of the land, and the effect of such acquisition by the Land Commission, therefore, will be that the cash value of the award is added to the purchase price of the land. In these circumstances, the object desired by the hon. and gallant Member would appear already attained, and I see no ground for any further action in the matter. I may say that when I was in Dublin I brought this question to the notice of the Free State Government, and received that assurance from them.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will the awards for rebuilding be paid in cash, and not in Irish Land Bonds?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, any award which the Wood-Renton Commission make for cash will be paid in cash.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Has the British Parliament ever sanctioned forcing men who have been driven out of Ireland through terror of their lives to spend money on rebuilding houses which they can never occupy?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is an argument.

Sir W. DAVISON: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now inform the House why the defended decrees obtained between January, 1919, and July, 1921, in the cases of H. V. Macnamara, Edith Macnamara, W. W. Manning, John Smyth, and Orlando Osborne, have not been paid by the Irish Free State Government as agreed with the British Government; how many defended decrees were obtained during the period mentioned; and what total amount is still unpaid?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have asked for the information desired by the hon. Member, and hope to be able to give it to him at an early date.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I sent him this informa-
tion nearly five months ago, and reminded him of the matter nearly a month ago, and that these unfortunate people, most of whom are in very poor circumstances, have not yet been paid?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am aware that my hon. Friend sent the information to me as he states, and I wrote that very afternoon in regard to these cases, and have also sent reminders, but I have not yet received any reply.

Sir W. DAVISON: Could the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as to what total amount is still unpaid, having regard to the fact that it was agreed between the British Government and the Irish Free State that all defended decrees would be paid?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that in every case these amounts are small—under £100 each—but the delay, I agree, is unsatisfactory.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Does not the British Government guarantee the claims before 1921; and, further, does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, even though these amounts may be small, they are all-important to these people, and will he see that this compensation is paid?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly; we are doing our best. If they were in this country, we could make advances to them through the Irish Grants Committee, but I believe these people are still in Ireland, and, therefore, that machinery cannot be utilised. I am confident, as the result of my going over there, that the machinery will be improved. It is very largely a question of machinery.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that there are numbers of people who are only too anxious to emigrate but are unable to overcome the difficulties provided by the fare and, secondly, by the lack of sufficient information as to the various parts of the world to which they might emigrate, he will consider the desirability of diffusing knowledge of the facilities which exist under State-assisted schemes on far more popular lines than at present, and whether
he can take further steps generally to ensure greater publicity for the work of Imperial emigration?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Information as to the facilities for migration under State-aided schemes is being increasingly diffused by means of leaflets, posters, cinema displays, etc. But the hon. Member will, no doubt, appreciate the fact that the volume of migration from this country is governed by the extent to which openings for settlers are available overseas.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the Department take steps to make this country available for its best citizens?

Mr. MUIR: If there is to be any further extension of publicity on Imperial emigration, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to ensure that any such publicity will not be more picturesque and flamboyant than the conditions in the Dominions warrant?

Oral Answers to Questions — SAAR VALLEY.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State far Foreign Affairs whether in the discussion at the Council of the League of Nations not only the president of the Saar Commission, but any dissenting member of the Commission or representative of the population of the Saar will be heard?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): This is a matter for the Council to decide, and I can give the hon. Member no undertaking as to the persons whom it may desire to consult.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: What instructions will be given to the British representative? Surely that is a matter for this House?

Mr. McNEILL: About what?

Captain BENN: About summoning representatives of the Saar inhabitants before this inquiry.

Mr. McNEILL: I do not believe any instructions could be given on that point. I think the British representative, on a matter of that kind, would use his own discretion.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: May we understand that an inquiry still has to take place, and that it has not yet taken place?

Mr. McNEILL: As far as I know, I think the inquiry has, in point of fact, taken place.

Mr. BUXTON: Arising out of that very important statement, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman considers that the inquiry to which some allusion has been made in the newspapers can possibly be described as a judicial inquiry, when one side has been heard and the other has not?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot pronounce judgment on that point. His Majesty's Government has a representative upon the Council, but he is not receiving instructions as to every word he should speak and every Vote he should give.

Mr. PRINGLE: Has not the Council of the League of Nations actually come to a decision in regard to this matter?

Mr. McNEILL: I think I have seen that in the Press, but I have no other source of information about it.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the event of disagreement as to the interpretation of any relevant article of the Treaty of Versailles or of the Saar Annexes to the said Treaty, the British representative will urge that the matter be referred to the permanent Court of International Justice?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot undertake to answer hypothetical questions.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Have the French Government undertaken to demolish in the Saar district the barracks they built against the sense of the Versailles Treaty?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. BUXTON: 60.
also asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Council of the League of Nations proposes that an inquiry shall be held into the administration of the Saar basin by the Governing Commission; if so, at what date it will be held; who are the persons appointed to conduct the inquiry; whether they will proceed to the
Saar basin itself; what witnesses they will examine; and whether they will inquire into the suppression of the German currency, into the presence of French troops in the district, into the new ordinance with regard to the Press and public meetings; and into the wages paid to the miners which are alleged to have been the cause of the recent unrest?

Mr. McNEILL: I must ask the hon. Member to await the decision of the League. The House will recognise that it is difficult, and, indeed, undesirable, for His Majesty's Ministers to deal by question and answer here with matters that are not in their hands, but in those of the League.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA (SLAVE TRADE).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that British subjects in Abyssinia are, by reason of the widespread nature of slave-owning and slave-trading in that country, compelled to obtain slaves for the discharge of their commercial obligations and needs; whether the Foreign Office has considered the serious contingencies which might arise for these British subjects in view of the peculiar relation in law of slavery in foreign territories; and, if so, whether the British Minister at Addis Ababa will will consider the advisability of issuing a warning to British subjects that anyone engaged in acts of slave traffic is liable to the same grave penalties under British law as if the offence were committed in this country?

Mr. McNEILL: I have no information of the nature indicated in the first part of the question. In September, 1922, the British and French representatives at Addis Ababa issued a notice to their respective nationals in Abyssinia to the effect that the possession of slaves is a punishable offence under British and French law.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS (WASHINGTON TREATY).

Viscount CURZON: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been or are to be taken to secure the ratification
of the other signatories to the Washington Treaty within a reasonable time; whether any representations have been made upon this matter by any other Power; and whether there is any necessity to await ratification by the Powers who have not yet signed?

Mr. McNEILL: It is for the United States Government rather than His Majesty's Government to take the initiative in this matter. Consequently, no representations have been made nor have any been received by His Majesty's Government. The latest information in the possession of the Secretary of State is that the Naval Treaty has been ratified by the French Chamber. Otherwise the position is as stated in the reply which I gave to the Noble and gallant Member on the 21st February last. It is provided in the Treaty itself that it shall take effect only on the deposit of all the ratifications.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether any approach has been made by the Royal Japanese Government to His Majesty's Government with a view to the carrying out of the terms of the Washington Naval Convention by Japan, Great Britain, and the United States of America by mutual agreement, irrespective of the action of France and Italy in not carrying out the terms of the Agreement; what, is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this proposal; and whether any part of the Agreement has not been carried into effect already by Great Britain?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Stanley Baldwin): His Majesty's Government have received no such proposal, and the second part of the question therefore does not arise. As regards the last part of the question, the Agreement is being carried out in all parts, but the Treaties of Washington Act, 1922, restricting the building of vessels of war by private firms in certain aspects, has not yet come into operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH IMMIGRANTS (ELLIS ISLAND).

Mr. BECKER: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that it is admitted by immigration officials at Ellis Island that
150 persons, of various races and colours, have been housed in the same sleeping quarters and that they cannot remedy this evil unless they build a larger building, he will make representations to the United States Government with a view to obtaining improved conditions for the increasing number of detained British immigrants?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, who inspected Ellis Island about six months ago at the invitation of the United States Government, communicated to the United States Government the impressions left on him by that inspection. Sir A. Geddes made no secret of his conviction that the only way effectively to relieve the congestion at Ellis Island would be either to build an entirely new station or to supplement that already existing on the island (which cannot for reasons of space be much enlarged) by creating an additional station to which certain classes of immigrants could be diverted. It would be difficult for His Majesty's Government to make official recommendations as frank in character as the suggestions which Sir A. Geddes has thus had an opportunity of making in an unofficial manner. According to Press reports, one at least of his suggestions has recently been acted upon, a board of final appeal against deportation having been set up at Ellis Island itself, thus obviating the necessity for reference to a board in Washington and the delay thereby entailed.

Captain BERKELEY: Will the hon. Gentleman lay a copy of the report on the Table?

Mr. McNEILL: I think I should have to get the consent of the United States Government before doing so.

Viscount CURZON: Would it not be possible to get the American Government to consent to examination at the port of departure rather than waiting to get to Ellis Island?

Mr. McNEILL: I should require notice.

Major PAGET: Would it not be possible to refer the matter to the League of Nations?

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS NEWS (FOREIGN OFFICE MESSAGES).

Captain MOREING: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the nature of the bulletin prepared in his Department and transmitted through the Leafield wireless station; how often it is despatched; and what is the cost of preparing and transmitting it?

Mr. McNEILL: The messages deal with questions and events both domestic and foreign, which are of national importance and of international interest. They are despatched three times daily. They are prepared by members of the staff of the News Department of the Foreign Office, who also perform other duties. The messages differ in length, but on an average contain about 600 words, and a credit is allowed to the Post Office at the rate of 3½d. per word in respect of their transmission.

Captain MOREING: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is any longer desirable that the Government should become a press agent?

Mr. McNEILL: If the Government did not think it any longer desirable to do it, it would not be done.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: What useful purpose is served by it?

Mr. McNEILL: It would take too long to explain.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUHR OCCUPATION.

BRITISH TOURISTS.

Mr. GILBERT: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recent railway regulations made by the French authorities in the Ruhr district of the occupied territory in Germany will prevent British tourists from visiting this or any part of Germany; whether tourists in the holiday season are still free to visit the Rhine and the many holiday places adjacent thereto; can he make any statement on the subject for the guidance of British tourists; and can he state if the same regulations apply to visitors on business to that part of Germany?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government are unaware of any recent railway
regulations which would prevent British subjects from visiting the Ruhr or from passing through the Ruhr en route for any other part of Germany. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the following notice, which was issued by the Foreign Office on 9th February last:
In existing circumstances passports for occupied German territory can be granted only in cases of important business or exceptional urgency. Persons travelling to Germany, both occupied and unoccupied, are warned of possible discomfort and delay owing to the uncertain train service.
This notice still holds good for individual travellers, but in the case of personally conducted tours a concession has been made, and such parties are allowed to proceed on an undertaking being given that the necessary arrangements have been made for railway facilities and accommodation, and on the understanding that the party is being conducted on the responsibility of the agency organising the tour.

Mr. PONSONBY: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if British citizens are being prevented by French military orders from freely travelling in Germany?

Mr. McNEILL: I have had no information to that effect.

FRANKFURT AND CASSEL.

Mr. PONSONBY: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government have any information as to the threatened occupation of Frankfurt and Cassel by the French military authorities?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the French have already occupied the suburbs of Frankfurt?

Mr. McNEILL: Not so far as I am aware.

Commander BELLAIRS: In view of the fact that the area of occupation is continually being extended, would it be possible to exhibit in the Tea Room a map showing the original proposal of the French Government and the present extent of the occupation?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: As the Prime Minister said a week ago he was fully informed of everything that is going on in the Ruhr, cannot the Under-Secretary
tell us whether in fact the outskirts of Frankfurt are occupied?

Sir W. DAVISON: Could we at the same time have in the Tea Room a statement of what Germany agreed to pay and what she has already paid?

COMMUNICATIONS WITH FRANCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to state whether a reply has been received from the French Government to the British Note on the occupation of the Ruhr Valley; and, if so, what is the nature of this reply?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that as soon as it is possible to give any information to the House on the subject of his question, it will be done.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of that statement being made in the course of this week?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it will be possible to make some statement on Thursday.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my question—I can understand his reluctance to answer the second; I do not press that—has he had a reply from the French Government, "Yes" or "No"?

The PRIME MINISTER: I told the hon. and gallant Gentleman the other day that verbal communications were passing.

BRITISH AREA.

Mr. MOREL: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the effect of the latest measures adopted by the French military authorities in the Ruhr and Rhineland has been to isolate the British Army in the British-occupied area except where it faces the Rhine; whether the British-occupied area, except the river frontage, is surrounded by barbed wire and guarded by French soldiers; whether British subjects desiring to enter or to leave the British-occupied area are, in fact, free to do so; whether, in view of these measures and of the influx into the British-occupied area of numerous families expelled by the French military
authorities from the Ruhr, there is reason to anticipate a serious shortage of food supplies in this area; and whether the officer commanding the British troops in that area has recently reported as to the increasing difficulties of the situation in which the British Army is placed?

Mr. TREVELYAN: 53.
asked the Prime Minister if German railwaymen and their families, expelled from the Ruhr by the French military authorities, are taking refuge in the British occupied area; and if he has received any report from the British officer commanding our troops in that area as to the threatened shortage of food supply, affecting both the civil population and the British troops?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): I have been asked to reply to these questions. So far as I am aware, no recent measures taken by the French have materially affected the situation of the British Army on the Rhine. I am not aware of any restriction on the freedom of movement of British subjects entering or leaving the British zone, or of any influx of refugees, or of any anticipated food shortage. No special reports have been received from the local military authorities on any of these matters.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. C. BUXTON: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has caused any inquiry to be made as to the conditions now prevailing in the Ruhr district as to the supply of food and necessaries to the industrial population; and, if so, what is the result of such inquiry?

Mr. McNEILL: My information is to the effect that the German authorities themselves have made no complaint of any shortage.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUSPENDED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARIES).

Mr. HUGHES: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of proposing a rule providing that the Parliamentary salary shall not be payable to a Member of this House during a period of suspension?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no reason to believe that there is a general
feeling in the House that such a rule should be laid down, but if it should be the case, I am prepared to put a Motion on the Paper, and to leave the result to the unfettered decision of the House. I can, however, hold out no hope that it would be possible to give time for any such Motion before the House rises.

Mr. HUGHES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability, during the period of suspension, of reducing the salary of the suspended Member, at least in proportion to the unemployment dole?

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply the principle fully, if at all, to Members of Parliament who do not fulfil their Parliamentary functions?

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Captain W. BENN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention before the Imperial Conference meets to make a statement on the policy of the Government concerning matters which will come up for discussion; and whether the House of Commons will, like the Dominion Parliaments, have an opportunity of expressing their opinion before the Conference meets?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to my Noble Friend the Member for Shrewsbury on the 14th of June.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister of every Dominion has stated his policy at this Conference and that he alone has not stated his policy; and is it right that this Government and this Parliament alone should be prevented from discussing such an important matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: The object of a Conference surely is to confer, and the process of conferring is necessarily exploratory, and if those explorations yield results, those results will be discussed in the House of Commons. In the meantime, I do not see that a debate would serve any useful purpose, although, if desired, one could be held on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to an extension of Preference to foodstuffs?

Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not in accordance with precedent to have a discussion of the programme of such a Conference before it actually takes place? Such a discussion took place before the last Conference.

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that is the case necessarily—certainly not a discussion of policy. I am not aware of a debate in which matters of policy were involved. But a debate on the subjects to be considered has, I think, been held before.

Captain BERKELEY: If specific questions be put to the Government on the Colonial Office Vote will they not be answered?

The PRIME MINISTER: It depends entirely whether they are answerable.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question—whether it is the Government policy to extend the preference to foodstuffs?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that is a question which can be answered. There would have to be a mass of evidence brought forward, and the subject would have to be explored.

Mr. PRINGLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received Mr. McKenna's assent to the extension of preference to foodstuffs?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the sum total of the amounts that are required by His Majesty's Government to be paid by Germany for reparations to this country and by the Allied debtor countries in respect of their debts is the equivalent of the amount that must be paid to the United States; and will he give an assurance that this is the extreme limit of our sacrifices, and that it will be absolutely impossible to accept any further reductions?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I stated on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill last Wednesday, the offer we made in January was not accepted, and our hands
are perfectly free to deal with Allied debts. I certainly could not contemplate a position in which all sacrifices involved in any settlement were made at the expense of the British taxpayer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRE-WAR PENSIONS.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Government decision to postpone the introduction of the Bill dealing with the addition to the Pre-War Pensions (Increase) Act till the Autumn Session, he will consider the advisability of making the operative Clauses of the Bill date back to the beginning of the present Session, so as to give some compensation for the delay to the beneficiaries?

The PRIME MINISTER: When the Bill is introduced, I will consider the possibility of providing for its taking effect, as originally intended, from the 1st instant, so that the delay in its introduction may not penalise the beneficiaries. I fear no earlier date can be conceded.

Oral Answers to Questions — AERIAL ARMAMENTS.

Captain W. BENN: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the Government to come to some understanding with the French Government with a view to the limitation of air power; and whether any proposals have been made to this end?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the previous statements which I have made on this subject.

Captain BENN: Would the Government be prepared to continue the Washington conversations on this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend must leave it to the Government to determine what, in their opinion, is the most favourable opportunity of dealing with the subject, believing that we are just as earnest in the desire to come to some arrangement as he is.

Oral Answers to Questions — RED CROSS CREDITS (SCANDINAVIA).

Viscount CURZON: 57.
asked the Prime Minister on what dates during the year
1918 was paper money taken by King's or Admiralty messengers to Scandinavia for the Red Cross or other purposes; what were the amounts in each case; were the transactions made through banks; if so, what banks; did the Foreign Office approve, in view of the obviously grave objections, when the money reached German hands or when the money was exchanged; who received the profits of the exchange; if credit could have been obtained in Denmark upon British security; and, if so, why was this method not adopted?

The PRIME MINISTER: The records of the Foreign Office only show the occasion described by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton on 20th June, and the sum transmitted was £50,000. No banks were employed for the transaction. I cannot agree with my Noble and gallant Friend's estimate of the objections attaching to it; the prisoners of war obtained the profits of the exchange, and, for that reason, the method suggested in the last part of the question was not adopted.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA (BRITISH CAPITAL).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 59.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been able to take advantage of the presence in London of the Rumanian Finance Minister to discuss with him the serious disabilities under which British capital in Rumania has been suffering?

Mr. McNEILL: Conversations with M. Bratianu have taken place, and will be continued, on this and kindred subjects affecting the economic and financial relations of Great Britain and Rumania.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman receive a deputation from the Bradford Chamber of Commerce while these negotiations are going on, to discuss the treatment by the Rumanian commercial community of Bradford wool firms?

Mr. McNEILL: Perhaps my hon. Friend will make that proposition to me in writing, in order that I may consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR REGULATIONS, UNITED STATES (BRITISH WARSHIPS).

Viscount CURZON: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position of His Majesty's ships when in American territorial waters in view of the Volstead Prohibition Act?

Mr. McNEILL: Owing to the extraterritorial character enjoyed by ships of war, domestic legislation such as the Volstead Prohibition Act does not apply to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

MRS. STAN HARDING.

Captain BERKELEY: 62.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a responsible member of the Russian Government has again repeated the accusation of espionage against Mrs. Harding, the British journalist; that this repetition has been given wide publicity in the British and American Press, to the serious detriment of Mrs. Harding's reputation; and whether, seeing that His Majesty's Government have obtained a promise of compensation for false imprisonment in respect of this unfounded charge, he can make a statement on this matter?

Mr. McNEILL: I have seen the statement referred to, but I can only repeat that it is impossible to prevent the Soviet Government from repeating slanders which they know to be false; I cannot believe that such unfounded allegations are a detriment to Mrs. Harding's reputation, which has been completely vindicated by His Majesty's Government, and by the redress agreed to be given by the Soviet Government; I have no means of securing greater publicity than has already been given to the case, but I feel sure that the Press, both in this country and in the United States, may be trusted to do justice to a lady who has been proved innocent of the charges falsely made against her.

AGRICULTURAL EXHIBITION, MOSCOW.

Mr. NEWBOLD: 65.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether His Majesty's Trade Mission to Russia has applied for space,
and been allocated the same, for a stand at the agricultural exposition to be held in Moscow from 15th August to 15th October; if he will state the names of British firms which have already notified their intention of exhibiting machinery; and if, having regard to the great interest being shown in the supply of agricultural machinery and other requirements of the Russian peasantry by the United States, German, Swedish, and Czechslovakia manufacturers, he will take steps to call the immediate attention of British manufacturers to the trade opportunities afforded by the Russian market?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have no knowledge of any British firms having notified their intention of participating in the exhibition. As regards the last part of the question, notice of the proposed exhibition has appeared for some time past in the Board of Trade Journal. My Department also makes available to British manufacturers and traders such information as may be received in regard to opportunities afforded by the Russian market.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Is it not a fact that Mr. Hodgson visited the site, and that negotiations are in progress?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Mr. Hodgson may have visited the site, but I know nothing about negotiations.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Will you make further inquiry?

Oral Answers to Questions — BAVARIA (TREASON TRIAL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 63.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the trials for high treason at Munich of certain Germans who are accused of plotting with one of the Allied Powers for the raising of a revolution in Bavaria and the separation of Bavaria under a German monarch from the German Empire; whether he is aware that the evidence tends to show that the Allied Power in question undertook to supply money and arms for such a purpose, and did, in fact, pay over moneys; and whether His Majesty's Government has had or has any knowledge of these matters?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government are aware that a trial has taken place of the character indicated in the question, but I am unable to say whether the precise charge against the accused persons is accurately defined by the hon. and gallant Member. As regards the second part of the question, I am aware that allegations of this nature have been made in the course of the trial, but His Majesty's Government have no information to enable them to judge of the reliability of such statements.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITON.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 64.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that, under the agreement of 24th June, 1920, Mr. Wintour was entitled to a salary of £3,000 per annum, free of Income and Super Tax, £2,000 per annum as entertainment allowance, and his travelling expenses while away from London; if so, seeing that the exhibition must end next year, on what basis the compensation of £14,600 was arrived at, in view of the fact that his expenses for entertainment and travelling on behalf of the exhibition would not be incurred after his retirement; is he aware that the sum of £2,110 15s. 6d. was paid to him within a month of the signing of the agreement for the purpose of purchasing a motor car; and who was responsible for arranging these terms?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except that the allowance of £2,000 included provision for a motorcar as well as for entertainment. As regards the second part, I understand the amount of compensation was assessed on a basis of 2½ years' salary and allowances. As regards the third part, if my hon. Friend will consult the agreement he will see that the sum of £2,110 15s. 6d. was to be paid to Mr. Wintour not merely for purchasing a motor-car, but in view of his having already been engaged on the work of the exhibition for nearly six months. As regards the last part of the question, I may refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer.

Sir J. REMNANT: Am I to understand from what has been just said that this exhibition was promoted by Mr. Wintour?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: not say that.

Captain A. EVANS: Is it the fact that the Gentleman in question is still in receipt of a salary of £1,000 per annum for agreeing to act in an advisory capacity? Can I have an answer to that question, Mr. Speaker?

Sir R. HAMILTON: 66.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what are the emoluments of Mr. Belcher and the cost of his visit to New Zealand in connection with the British Empire Exhibition?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I am informed that Mr. Belcher receives a salary of £1,700 and an entertainment allowance of £800. I understand that an expenditure of £408 was incurred by Mr. Belcher's mission, consisting of four persons in all, during their stay in New Zealand, which extended from 3rd July to 29th August, 1922. This visit formed part of a tour of all the Dominions, and it would be difficult to estimate what proportion of the cost of the mission's oversea transport should be allocated to the New Zealand visit.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why Mr. Belcher was appointed?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: No, I cannot tell the hon. Member that.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVENT GARDEN MARKET.

Mr. LAMBERT: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps, in the interest of both producer and consumer, to terminate the monopoly now held by Covent Garden Market, which prevents any other markets for fruit and vegetables being established in or near London?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): There is no monopoly enjoyed by Covent Garden Market which can prevent the establishment of other markets for fruit and vegetables in or near London.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a committee the other day described Covent Garden as a confused and unauthorised anachron-
ism, and will he take steps to terminate that state of affairs?

Mr. HURST: In view of the report of the committee, is it not possible to summon a conference of those concerned in the market to try to bring about an improvement?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am certainly ready to consider that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING (RETAIL INDEX FIGURES).

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in computing the cost of living, the assessors base their calculations on the cheapest food obtainable or whether a certain standard of quality is insisted on?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. The calculations for the retail index figures, which are made in the Ministry of Labour, are based on the averages of the prices charged in some 500 towns and villages for articles of the kind and quality most generally purchased by working-class families.

Mr. W. THORNE: In regard to the retail prices indicated in the "Labour Gazette," does the hon. Gentleman think it possible to purchase the articles in the shops at the prices given in the Gazette, except the cheapest muck in the market?

Mr. BETTERTON: On 9th July, an answer extending to four columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT dealt with the whole question. If there is anything in that long statement about which the hon. Member is in doubt, perhaps he will put down another question.

Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the last "Labour Gazette," fresh eggs were marked at 1½d. each, and that you cannot get a new-laid egg under 2d.?

Oral Answers to Questions — "LUSITANIA" (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).

Mr. HINDS: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the claims of relatives and survivors from the
sinking of the "Lusitania" have yet been settled; and, if not, whether he will expedite the same?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): A large proportion of the awards in the case of the "Lusitania" have been paid, and the balance are being paid as rapidly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (KING'S ROLL).

Captain BOWYER: 72 and 73.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) what number of firms and local authorities are now upon the King's Roll; how many are there who are qualified to belong; how many have and have not renewed their undertaking;
(2) in how many counties have county King's Roll committees been set up; and how soon does he expect that all counties will have such a committee?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am informed that a Report will probably be made at an early date by the King's Roll National Council dealing with the whole position of the King's Roll. I should prefer not to deal with particular items till this Report has been received, but if the hon. and gallant Member will repeat his question in a fortnight's time, I hope to be able to give him the information he desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINERS' DISPUTE, WHITEHAVEN.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: 74.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the disturbances which have taken place at Whitehaven in connection with the coal-miners' strike there; if he is aware of the fact that these disturbances have to a large degree been accentuated by reason of some 800 men who, though employed at the collieries where the dispute exists, are in no way concerned in the dispute, but who have been turned off their work and refused out-of-work benefit by the local unemployment committee; and will he contribute towards the restoration of peace in the town by authorising the payment to the 800 men above referred to?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have no information leading me to suppose that the disturbances at Whitehaven can fairly be attributed to the cause suggested by the hon. Member. In any event the decision on claims to unemployment benefit affected by a trade dispute must be given in accordance with the Unemployment Insurance Acts through the machinery of the insurance officer, court of referees and the umpire. I understand that benefit in most cases has been disallowed by the insurance officer and the court of referees, but that a number of appeals are to be heard by the umpire on Wednesday next.

Mr. DUFFY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men in the main are safety men who are not concerned with the dispute between the underground workers and the employers?

Mr. BETTERTON: I was not aware of the facts put by the hon. Member. In any case I have no doubt that these considerations will be taken into account by the umpire when he comes to give his decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — SANITARY INSPECTOR, BODMIN.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 78.
asked the Minister of Health if the advertisement which appeared in the Bodmin Guardian of 29th June for a part-time sanitary inspector at a salary of £110 per annum, to include travelling expenses, was first submitted to him for his sanction in accordance with Article 8 of the Sanitary Officers Order; whether he sanctioned the same; and whether, since it has been laid down that it is desirable, in districts possessing a population of over 10,000, that an inspector should devote his whole time to the duties of his office, he will recommend to the Bodmin Rural District Council that a whole-time officer should be engaged at an adequate remuneration?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Lord Eustace Percy): The Council have not reported the vacancy, and my right hon. Friend, therefore, has had no opportunity of considering their advertisement. He proposes to arrange for an inspection of the district at an early date, and when he has received the Inspector's Report he will consider whether it is necessary to insist on the appointment of a whole-time officer.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SPECIAL SCHOOLS.

Major MOLLOY: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that, while there are 28,500 mentally deficient children in England and Wales who might benefit by being educated in special schools, accommodation is only available for 16,000, and that during 1922 seven authorities who proposed to provide such schools were refused permission on financial grounds; and, in view of the adverse influence upon normal children likely to result from their being educated side by side with mental defectives, he can see his way to allow the education authority to provide the special schools referred to?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Edward Wood): I have at present under review all the proposals for the extension of special school accommodation which have been put before the Board since January, 1921. I have been able to approve a few of these proposals, and propose to proceed as quickly as possible with my consideration of the remainder, together with any others that may reach me, giving preference to the most urgent cases and to those which do not involve the erection of new and costly buldings.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.

Mr. LEACH: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Education what are the reasons for the delay, extending in some cases to six and 12 months after resignation, in the final determination of teachers' superannuation allowances; if he is aware that much hardship and anxiety results from such protracted delay; and will he undertake to speed up the settlement of all such cases?

Mr. WOOD: I may refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on the 16th April last to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Linfield). As stated in that reply, every effort is made to relieve hardship in cases where delay is unavoidable by the issue of interim awards.

Mr. R. MORRISON: In view of the great distress caused to superannuated teachers by this delay, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to have payment of a certain amount in advance?

Mr. WOOD: If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, that is exactly what I said in my answer that we are doing.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Commander BELLAIRS: I should like your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of procedure in regard to questions addressed to His Majesty's Ministers. I apologise for not having had the opportunity of giving notice. It will be within your recollection that the Foreign Office refused to answer several questions in regard to the League of Nations. I have always understood that there is but one ground upon which a Minister can refuse to answer questions, and that is that it is not in the public interest. The League of Nations is paid for largely by this House, and I submit that it is a precedent of very great importance as to whether we are entitled to have answers in regard to the League of Nations. I ask you whether, when it cannot be pleaded by His Majesty's Ministers that it is against the public interest, we are not entitled to ask questions and receive answers in regard to events which have already taken place?

Mr. R. McNEILL: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. and gallant Friend has given no notice to me that he intended to raise this matter to-day? I will only say, speaking now on the spur of the moment, that I can recollect no occasion on which the Government have declined to give an answer to a question in regard to the League of Nations.

Commander BELLAIRS: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Question 60, in regard to which there was a specific refusal to answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is a matter on which I can proceed on the instant to lay down a rule. There have been cases where a Minister representing this country has made a statement on his return. It is within the discretion of the Minister not to answer in regard to some matter which is then in progress, and where a responsible Minister of this country was present.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that if any hon. Member is dissatisfied with a Minister or the Government he can put down a vote of censure?

Captain BENN: Are we to understand that the responsible act of a representative of this country on the League does not rest with the Government, and cannot be questioned?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is hardly for me to lay down any such rule. I do not think I ought to be drawn into this matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Captain BENN: In regard to the Motion on the Paper in the name of the Prime Minister, to suspend the 11 o'clock Rule on the business of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Bill, may I ask if the Prime Minister has in mind the fact that an all-night Sitting on this subject three years ago led to the passing of a Bill which has given rise to endless confusion?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope it will not be necessary to sit very late. The

object is to get the Third Reading to-morrow night.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Bill and on Public Works Loans [Remission of Debts] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Mr. TURNER: Am I entitled to oppose this Motion?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can vote against it.

Mr. TURNER: Am I entitled to ask a question about it?

Mr. SPEAKER: Under the Standing Order, I am bound to put the Question, forthwith, without Amendment or Debate.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 142.

Orders of the Day — RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS BILL.

As amended (in Standing Committee) considered.

The following new Clause stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir F. Lowe):
As regards any houses not fully decontrolled by the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, Section seven of the principal Act shall continue to apply.

Mr. SPEAKER: The proposal of the hon. Member will come better as an Amendment to a Clause in the Bill as it stands. If he looks at the Paper, he will see that there is a similar proposal to amend Clause 10, in the name of one of his colleagues, and that that Amendment raises the same point as the hon. Member's new Clause. I propose to call that Amendment when we reach it.

Sir F. LOWE: That Amendment is rather more complicated, and has effects which my new Clause has not. I should not have thought that the new Clause was necessarily out of order. It deals with a definite matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's new Clause is not out of order, only out of place. It should come as an Amendment to Clause 10. The hon. Member can bring it up, as an Amendment to Clause 10, in any form he pleases.

Sir F. LOWE: I would prefer to bring it forward as a separate Clause rather than as an Amendment to Clause 10, and, if it be in order, I should like to move it.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not in order as a new Clause. It will be in order as an Amendment to Clause 10. Where a matter can properly be dealt with by an Amendment to a Clause, it should not be brought up as a new Clause. The third Clause on the Paper (Application of principal Act in certain cases) is the one which I select first.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: With regard to the second new Clause on the Paper (Provisions as to notice to quit), shall I be in order in moving it later, as
an Amendment, say, to Clause 2? There is no Amendment on the Paper, and it would therefore have to be a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon Member will submit an Amendment to me, I will consider it.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of principal Act in certain cases.)

Where possession of a dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house, to which the principal Act applies, is obtained by any person under Part I of this Act, and the said dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house is not occupied within a period of three months from the obtaining of possession, or occupation is subsequently given up by the person so obtaining possession, or by the person on whose behalf possession is obtained, the principal Act shall thereupon apply to the said dwelling-house or that part of the dwelling-house of which possession has been obtained.—[Mr. Mosley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MOSLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In my view, the acceptance of this Clause would go far towards meeting one of the worst evils of this Measure. It deals with a point of considerable substance, which was raised on the Second Reading and was considerably debated in Committee, although no proposal in this precise form has yet been considered. It was argued on the Second Reading of the Bill that a great new incentive is now provided to landlords to obtain possession of their houses. As the House is well aware, under the second Clause of this Bill, any house that comes into the possession of the landlord in future or any house that is now in his possession, is automatically decontrolled, with the result that the landlord can let it at any price he likes, and, of course, can secure a greatly enhanced price if he decides to sell it. That fact obviously gives a far greater incentive to landlords to obtain possession of their houses than ever existed in the past. It was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Sidney Webb) on the Second Reading that some eight new methods are given to landlords under Part I of obtaining possession of their houses. One or two of these methods were modified in Committee, but there still remain many new ways in which a landlord can obtain possession of his house which were not
open to him previously. We have therefore a far greater incentive to the landlord to obtain possession and far greater facilities for him to obtain possession. Consequently, I venture to move this Clause, which provides some protection to the tenant without destroying in any way the main feature and intention of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill.
All this Clause says is, that if within three months of the obtaining of the order the house has not been occupied by the person by whom or on whose behalf the order has been obtained, then the house shall automatically relapse under the provisions of the principal Act. Further, if the person who obtains possession or on whose behalf possession is obtained subsequently vacates the house, then also the house comes again under the provisions of the principal Act. It is evident that this Clause does not vitally affect the right hon. Gentleman's measure of decontrol on which his heart is so set. Even if this Clause were carried into law, he would still secure immediate decontrol of all the houses of which possession had been obtained prior to the passing of the Act and of all empty houses. Further, decontrol would be secured in the case of any house of which the landlord had obtained possession subsequent to the passing of this Act, provided he did not do it by any means specified in Part I. Therefore, even if he accepted this Clause, the right hon. Gentleman would still have secured a very substantial measure of decontrol.
My Clause, however, would prevent or deter the landlord from exerting himself to the utmost and straining the law in mobilising a whole host of phantom tenants under these new provisions to obtain decontrol of his property. It is quite evident that under the law as it exists this will be done on a very great scale in the future. It is very easy for the landlord to secure possession on many grounds. He can, without providing any alternative accommodation, secure possession for himself and his children provided that he was the owner prior to June, 1922. Therefore, in nearly every case—in nearly 99 per cent. of the cases—if the landlord proves that he wants it for himself or his children he can secure possession without providing any alternative accommodation. He can secure possession also in the other cases which are
specified in the Act, and if he became landlord after June, 1922, he can secure possession for himself and his children provided that the Court thinks that greater hardship would be inflicted by refusing possession than by granting it. In these cases also he has not to provide any alternative accommodation. Therefore, it is evident that by very many ways the landlord can obtain possession, and he has a very great incentive to do it.
This point was urged in Committee in some detail and in various forms, and the right hon. Gentleman did try to meet the case by introducing a new penalty Clause, which I anticipate he will urge as a consideration on the other side when he comes to reply. I ventured to point out—and subsequent examination confirms me in the opinion—that the penalty Clause provides no deterrent whatsoever. To begin with, the penalties provided are very slight indeed. They merely say that the landlord shall pay compensation to the tenant and that the house shall relapse under the principal Act. No substantial penalties are provided, and it can be argued successfully that it is quite impossible to prove in a Court of law that which it is necessary to prove if the penalty Clause is to become effective. The unfortunate tenant who is dispossessed has to take the initiative. He has to prove that at the time possession of the house was obtained by an order of the Court the landlord had not the intention of using the house for one of the purposes which he specified and by which he obtained the order. That is an impossible thing to prove. A landlord might get possession of a house on behalf of one of his children. The child might come along afterwards and say that he did not like the house and could get a better one elsewhere. The house, however, is decontrolled, and the landlord can let it at any price he likes and get an enhanced price for it if he sells it. How can a dispossessed tenant go into a Court of law and successfully prove that at the time the order was obtained the landlord had not the intention of using the house for the purpose which he specified? Of course, it is impossible to prove anything of the sort.
The right hon. Gentleman admitted in Committee that he desired to secure as great a measure of decontrol as he could, provided that no hardship was inflicted upon the tenant. It is evident that as
the law stands hardship must be inflicted upon the tenant of a very grave order. Indirect hardship will be inflicted—I will not deal with it at any length, because it does not specifically concern this Clause—by limiting the accommodation available throughout the country at reasonable rents. The fact that empty houses are decontrolled, and that all the houses automatically becoming vacant are decontrolled will inflict hardship upon the general body of tenants, because the market of houses available at reasonable rents will be pro tanto restricted. Indirect hardship will be inflicted in that way, but direct hardship must be inflicted by the law as it stands, because the landlord is provided with a premium or a great incentive to get rid of his tenant, and nobody can argue that as the Bill stands more people will not be dispossessed of their houses than would be the case if it were not carried into law. Obviously, if the landlord has a great incentive he will in every case take advantage of his power to get rid of the tenant, whereas if he had no incentive he would not take advantage of his power to get rid of his tenant. Therefore, it is no good the right hon. Gentleman urging upon the House that no direct hardship is inflicted upon the tenant by the law as it stands, and that this Clause will not remedy the hardships which are inflicted.
I venture to say that this Clause substitutes for the rather anodyne penalty Clause of the right hon. Gentleman a practical test of fact. It says that if the house be used for the purpose specified when the Order was obtained then, all right, it is decontrolled, but if, on the other hand, it be not so used and it is subsequently found that it either stands empty for a period of three months or is subsequently vacated by the person for whom possession had been obtained, then it comes back under the original Act. That applies the practical test of what subsequently happens after the obtaining of the Order, and it will provide a far greater deterrent to mala-fide action on the part of the landlord than any penalty Clause. The right hon. Gentleman cannot further argue that private enterprise will meet with any very great shock from a deterrent being provided against mala-fide action on the part of the landlord. He still has his empty houses and his new houses and houses which become ordi-
narily vacant decontrolled. All these great incentives are held out to private enterprise, and all we say is that if the landlord abuses his power, or, if he does not intentionally abuse his power, but, if the house be not used for the purpose which has been specified, then it shall relapse under the principal Act.
I do very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Clause, which will go far to meet some of the objections which have been urged against him. I hope, and I think, we may to-day find him in a more propitious mood than we did in Committee, for he has just returned from his native city with his brow adorned with fraternal laurels. The citizens of Birmingham have been informed of his many virtues. He has been provided with an authentic certificate of first-class brains—a fatal handicap in the Government of which he is a Member. All that I can say in this respect is that I trust that in his case it will not be held to disqualify those more substantial and real political virtues of honesty and simplicity, nor yet will it force him to be regarded askance by those who describe themselves as mugwumps. I have stated my reasons for moving this Clause, and my reason for believing that the right hon. Gentleman will be in a more propitious and yielding mood. It is a great day in his life, and I trust that he will do something to make it a little brighter day for the tenants.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I beg to second the Motion.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I take it that the purpose of the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) in moving this Clause is to deprive landlords of any incentive to put forward bogus claims. I understand that to be his underlying motive. In the course of his observations, he made one or two statements which were not quite accurate. To begin with, he said that any house of which the landlord came into possession would henceforward be decontrolled; but that is not the case. Those who were present in Committee will remember that I made an extremely important concession to certain criticisms which were put forward there, and also in the House, and it was provided expressly that where a landlord came into possession of a house
by reason of the tenant having been in arrears of rent, that would not be a case where the house should be decontrolled. That really cut away the most important criticism which was made upon this ground of bogus claims by the landlord. It was urged in Committee that the incentive to get possession of the house, by reason of the fact that the landlord would be getting his house out of control, was so great that there would be a real temptation to him to exercise much greater stringency, in the case of tenants who were in arrears with their rent, than he had been in the habit of doing. It was because I recognised that there was some force in that contention, that I made the concession to which I have referred and which I think goes as far as I can reasonably be expected to go in meeting the case put forward. What would be the result of carrying out this proposed new Clause? As far as concerns houses becoming vacant in the ordinary course of things, and in perfect good faith, there can be no question of any bogus claim by the landlord. He comes into possession of the house in the ordinary course of things, when it becomes vacant, and does not come into possession by reason of any initiative on his part. What the Mover has in mind seems to be a case under Clause 3 where the landlord comes into possession because he has asked for the house for his own occupation or the occupation of one of his children over the statutory age.

Mr. MOSLEY: And many others.

Mr. PRINGLE: Employés as well.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the case of employés, it can be no hardship to the tenant, because the landlord has to provide alternative accommodation.

Mr. MOSLEY: Within his means.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: He cannot get the tenant out unless he does so. In that case there can be no hardship to the tenant.

Mr. MOSLEY: It may be very expensive to the tenant.

Mr. PRINGLE: The cost of removal

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the case of the landlord wanting the house for himself or one of his children, what would
be the result if the house came into control again? Surely the result would be the very thing we want to avoid—to induce the landlord to keep houses empty, which is what he is doing now. We have had many complaints which had some substance in them that houses are being held up empty, and, as I have explained in Committee, the reason why they are being held up empty is because the landlord cannot find a purchaser and will not let them, seeing that if he lets them he will not be able to get the tenant out. If the houses are decontrolled he has no longer any inducement to keep them empty, but he can let them at the best rent he can get. That inducement to letting would be entirely removed by the proposed new Clause, and for that reason I cannot possibly accept it.

Mr. T. THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman in resisting the Amendment suggests that, because he removed one grievance, there is no reason why he should go on to remove a second. I submit that the fact he has admitted there is a danger in this respect, and that in Committee he had to take certain precautions providing against that danger, shows that there is substance in the proposal. It is possible the danger may now be limited, but, if it is limited, surely that is all the more reason why it should be met. In these matters protection is not sought against the mass of the landlords, but only against those who abuse what are perhaps their rights and their opportunities. All the proposed new Clause does, is to say that if the landlord gets possession through a mistake, then without the tenant having to take action against him, as would be the case under the 1920 Act, the house shall automatically go back into control. If these is no abuse, then the Clause is not operative; if there is abuse, then it is operative, in so far as it is needed. It is not merely a question of the hardship to the tenant, but the question of these houses going out of control.
I know the right hon. Gentleman is very anxious to decontrol as many houses as possible, but this Clause is brought forward to retain them in control for a longer period, until alternative accommodation is provided by the new houses under the other Bill. Until those houses are provided, nothing should be done to relax control which, at any rate,
is a protection for those who are trying to find houses, and cannot. Although the application of the Clause might be limited, it is intended to meet abuses and such a Clause is very desirable. It has been shown by the operation of Section 5 of the 1920 Act, that the penalty at present provided is largely inoperative, and that is bound to be the case, because once a tenant has been got out, he is not going to run the risk of bringing an action on the off-chance of getting damages. It should not be left to the individual tenant to say whether the reasons on which the house has been taken out of control, have lapsed. That is a question of public policy, and the house should automatically go back to control. If the landlord has a good reason let him bring it forward, but do not give him for all time the right to the decontrolled possession of the house, if he abuses the pretext on which the tenant has been got out.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I cannot conceive a worse suggestion than that contained in the Amendment. I could understand the hon. Member the Mover seeking to keep houses under control until the lapse of the time specified in the Bill, but I cannot understand his suggestion that a house should first be controlled, then decontrolled, and then put back under control once again. That would do the greatest possible harm to house-building in this country. I cannot see how the hon. Member makes good the case that if the landlord makes a mistake, then the house should go back to control. The suggestion here is that if a dwelling-house is not occupied within a period of three months the new Clause should become operative, and there is no question of any misstatement by the landlord. Does the Mover think that, when the landlord is enabled freely to let or sell his property, there will be much probability of houses being empty for three months?

Mr. MOSLEY: The hon. Member forgets that the landlord can obtain possession for a specific purpose under Part 1. If those conditions are not carried out, will the house not be left unoccupied?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think my hon. Friend is correct. In any event, even in the case of a landlord taking possession for himself or his son or daughter, he
has still to make application to the Court and it is still within the discretion of the Judge whether he gets possession or not. That seems to meet the case which is made in this respect. I have no doubt the Amendment is put forward with the best possible motives, but I hold the view very strongly that we must begin to make a move in the direction of meeting the hard cases of people who have purchased houses years ago but cannot get into them. If we cannot give decontrol in those cases, I do not know when we shall ever begin to have decontrol again. I can understand in many cases it is necessary to retain control, but we should not overlook the cases of people who have bought houses for their own occupation and are now living under conditions much more unfortunate and miserable than the conditions of the people who occupy those houses.

Mr. EDE: I do not think the hon. Member who has just spoken can have read the proposed new Clause which he is criticising, and he certainly was not present when we were discussing the matter in Committee. This Amendment only deals with cases where the landlord gets possession for a specific purpose and then fails to carry out the purpose for which he obtained possession.

Sir K. WOOD: The Amendment certainly does not say so.

Mr. EDE: The new Clause states that:
Where possession of a dwelling-house … is obtained … and the said dwelling-house is not occupied within a period of three months … or occupation is subsequently given up by the person so obtaining possession or by the person on whose behalf possession is obtained, the principal Act shall thereupon apply.
When possession has been obtained, and when it turns out that the pretext on which possession was obtained from the Judge has been departed from, then, the Clause says, the house is to come back under control.

Sir K. WOOD: There is not a word in the Clause about any misstatement by the landlord.

Mr. EDE: I am not aware that I myself have used the word "misstatement." It seems to me that this is a perfectly reasonable request, and when the matter was under discussion in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman used arguments far different from those which he has used
this afternoon. I moved an Amendment myself on these lines but I fixed the term at one month, instead of three, and I should support this proposal with a great deal more zeal if the term of one month had been retained. The right hon. Gentleman asked us to contemplate what it would mean supposing a landlord's son for whom possession had been obtained, were to break his leg, and have to go to hospital and asked us to think how hard that case would be. He did not argue against the merits of the proposal but proceeded entirely against the point that I had the term of one month in my Amendment. I rather gathered then that the right hon. Gentleman thought there was some substance in the plea we were putting forward. He also took refuge, on that occasion, in the penalties of the original Act, but it subsequently transpired, as far as we could find out, there was no record of any case ever having been brought to recover those penalties. This new Clause would give an additional power to see that these things are properly carried out. It would not be the tenant who is being turned out of the house who would have to bring action, but the tenant going into the house would have to take action if there were any breach of the pretext put forward before the Judge. Thus you would have a person who was still in touch with the landlord endeavouring to secure that the rent should be brought back to its original size. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) astonished me by saying that if a house were first controlled then decontrolled, and then controlled again, it would be bad for building.
That is an argument we are perpetually hearing. Really the hon. Member is sufficiently in touch with the persons who build houses to know that they have at least an average of the intelligence of the country and that they will realise that this Clause cannot apply to any houses they are now building, or to any houses that have been built since the War, because none of them are under control. It will do nothing with regard to restricting building, unless we are to be told that private enterprise is not going to build any more houses until all the existing pre-War houses have been taken out of control. If that be the case
for private enterprise, it might very well be stated frankly, but nothing in this Clause has anything to do with any house that is now being built. It was not argued against in Committee on the lines taken this afternoon, but solely on the question of time and the efficiency of the penalty Clauses. The hon. Member for Harrow has endeavoured to meet the Minister with regard to the point of time, and what we subsequently heard in Committee, I think, disposed of the question of the efficacy of penalty Clauses for dealing with this matter. I hope the House will insist on this very reasonable safeguard being put in to protect the tenants from that class of landlord—it may be a small class—who are undoubtedly trying to use the additional powers under this Bill to obtain possession of houses, and then use them for other purposes than those for which they have obtained possession.

Mr. SHINWELL: I think hon. Members in all quarters of the House can conceive of a house having been decontrolled and a house being empty for a considerable period, and I take it that hon. Members in all quarters of the House are anxious to utilise all available property in the country. There appears to be some confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on this point. It is not so much a question of hard cases, or even of stimulating the building of new houses; it is rather a question of utilising all the houses in existence. Let us assume the case of a house which passes from a tenant to the owner of the property under any of the Clauses of Part I of the Bill. There are a variety of ways in which such a transfer can take place. It may be because of misconduct of the tenant, or because the owner desires possession for himself or his child or someone in his employment. At all events, the transfer takes place, and for a short period, say a month or six weeks, the owner or the person under his control occupies the premises, but immediately after he vacates the premises. For what purpose? It may be to obtain a higher price for letting or on sale.
What is the remedy which hon. Members opposite propose for such a state of affairs? They have no remedy. The house may remain untenanted for six or 12 months, or even two years, as indeed
there are many houses at present untenanted, being held up simply because the owners wish to obtain very high prices. That is the whole point at issue, and unless you bring some pressure to bear on the owners of property, either to utilise their property or to subject it to the same control as other buildings are, then obviously the owners of property can do as they like. What we are anxious to prevent is the juggling with house property that is bound to arise immediately partial decontrol takes place, and if we wish to avoid that—and I think hon. Members opposite, and certainly the hon. Member for West Woolwich, who has a great knowledge of this question, will admit that juggling is likely to take place—we should accept this Clause.

Mr. PRINGLE: The case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) has been inadequately met by the other side of the House, both by the Minister of Health and by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). I think it is agreed that in all cases where you have legislation of this kind, where an attempt is made to deal with an abuse, those who are to be restrained by it will endeavour to get round the legislation which Parliament passes. That has been the experience of Parliament in relation to all legislation of this kind, and it is well, therefore, that an attempt should be made to defeat any devices to which those affected by the legislation may resort. The hon. Member for West Woolwich has put it that the effort which my hon. Friend is making will in some way or other prejudice those whom he describes as hard cases, the people who, as owners, have been kept out of their houses for a long time and who, he would lead the House to believe, would be still kept out of their houses if this Clause were passed. I think he is under a total misapprehension. Any person who could answer his description of a hard case, who is the owner of a house and who desires to occupy that house, can, under the Bill as it stands, obtain possession of the house, and, having obtained it, if he actually entered into occupation he could not be affected by this Clause at all. I think the hon. Member will agree that in all cases where they are being kept out of possession they will be anxious to obtain occupation at the earliest possible moment, and would be ready to go in as
soon as the house was empty. Under these conditions, none of the people whom he has in mind could in the slightest degree be prejudiced if this Clause were passed. This Clause could affect only those who were using the provisions of the Bill for the purpose of getting the houses decontrolled and not for the purpose of occupying the houses themselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow puts a fair test—the Clause itself contains a fair test—as to whether the Bill in its original form is to be used in a bona fide way. He says that if the house is not occupied within three months, or if, after a short occupation, it has become unoccupied, then there will be grounds for believing that the provisions of the Bill are being abused and that, consequently, the decontrol thus obtained should not be made effective for the benefit of the landlord. That is all that is proposed in the Clause, and because there is no reference in the Clause to any misstatement on the part of anybody, that does not at all affect the matter or make it less effective for the purpose in view. The real test is not whether a man has made a false statement to the Court, but whether in fact he has carried out the representations he has made to the Court. Could there be any better test for that purpose than that laid down in the Clause? It is true that in Committee a shorter period was mentioned, namely, one month, and I understand that then the Minister made that the main ground of his opposition to the proposal. That is why the period has been extended to three months, so that those desiring to occupy may have a reasonable time in which their bona fides can be tested. That point has not been met.
The right hon. Gentleman has not sought to deal with the argument which was put forward on behalf of the Clause. He says that after all it will affect a very few cases, and that the number of cases which may be affected has been reduced by the Amendment which he himself has accepted. That may be so, but still there are a large number of cases which may come within the purview of the Clause. Not only the owner and his family, but employés may come within the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman's only reply on the last case was that there the tenant who was evicted would have alternative accommodation, but nevertheless he would
still have a grievance, in that he would have been compelled to remove and would have had cast upon him the costs of removal in order that a landlord might obtain possession on false grounds. In these circumstances, I think Parliament is bound to take such action as it can to obtain a safeguard that the real intentions of the Legislature are carried out. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would mean that the house would be kept empty if it were to come under control again, and he cited the cases where, at present, houses are kept empty in order that the owner may obtain a large price for them. It seems to me to be a false argument that, because this abuse is going on at the present moment, it would therefore occur under this Clause, or that it should be allowed to occur under this Clause. If such an abuse were likely to occur, I think it is not beyond the ingenuity of this House to provide a means for dealing with it, and if the right hon. Gentleman now admits that there is at the present time this abuse, why should—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say it was an abuse.

Mr. PRINGLE: Then I will use a neutral term, and say that the right hon. Gentleman admits that this state of things does at present exist. The Minister apparently defends it. He thinks it is an admirable process that a landlord should not let his property, but that he should hold out for the highest price. Although he is against profiteering in letting, he is not against profiteering in selling. He goes on to say that this would occur if this Clause were passed without amendment. I am prepared to admit that it might, but, even so, I think it possible to devise an Amendment to deal with such a situation, and if the right hon. Gentleman regards that as the only ground for the rejection of the Amendment, I should say that he ought, on his own showing, rather to accept the Amendment and suggest supplementary measures for dealing with the situation. As to the contention of the hon. Member for West Woolwich that this Clause would have some prejudicial effect on building, I confess I was unable to follow it.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Member allow me to explain? The great difficulty
in building to-day is to get the money with which to do it. I can speak from my own personal experience of people who, in days gone by, would invest money in helping the builder to build a house, but who now say, "As long as restrictions of this kind continue, as long as we are always being subjected to interference by Parliament, we would sooner put our money into stocks and shares or any other investment."

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot make a second speech on the Report stage.

Mr. PRINGLE: I was anxious to give my hon. Friend an opportunity of getting out of his dialectical difficulty, but it seems that the explanation he has just given to the House actually plunges him further into it. I understand that if his contentions are out of order, you, Mr. Speaker, would regard as equally out of order any attempt on my part to traverse those contentions. I would merely observe that the hon. Member's argument is an argument against the whole Bill, and not against this Clause, for it is an argument that so long as there is any control at all, nobody will put money into houses. If that be the case, the hon. Member should have voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. This Clause, which is entirely in agreement with the spirit of the Measure, so far as we understand it, and is intended to prevent any abuses arising under the operation of the Bill as it stands, cannot in the slightest degree have the adverse effect which the hon. Gentleman suggests. It can apply only to houses at present in existence. It cannot apply to any houses that in future may be built, and consequently the conditions for building new houses are not in the slightest degree affected by this Clause. I submit, therefore, that both the arguments of the Minister and the arguments of the hon. Member for West Woolwich, who is now so ardently supporting him—and, I hope, supporting him in the right spirit and with the hope of just reward—are quite inadequate to lead the House to accept the position taken up by the Government. I hope my hon. Friend will divide in favour of the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 222.

Division No. 272.
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Apsley, Lord
Cope, Major William
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hood, Sir Joseph


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Houfton, John Plowright


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Dawson, Sir Philip
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Barnston, Major Harry
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Hudson, Capt. A.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hughes, Collingwood


Becker, Harry
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hurd, Percy A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)


Berry, Sir George
Ellis, R. G.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Betterton, Henry B.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Blundell, F. N.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Flanagan, W. H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Brass, Captain W.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Foreman, Sir Henry
Lamb, J. Q.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Bruford, R.
Furness, G. J.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gardiner, James
Lorden, John William


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Garland, C. S.
Lorimer, H. D.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Lort-Williams, J.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lougher, L.


Butcher, Sir John George
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Cadogan, Major Edward
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Lumley, L. R.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Halstead, Major D.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Margesson, H. D. R.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Clarry, Reginald George
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Mercer, Colonel H.


Clayton, G. C.
Harrison, F. C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Major S. E.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Remnant, Sir James
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Murchison, C. K.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Tubbs, S. W.


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Wallace, Captain E.


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Waring, Major Walter


Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Russell, William (Bolton)
Wells, S. R.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Paget, T. G.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Pease, William Edwin
Sandon, Lord
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Winterton, Earl


Penny, Frederick George
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wise, Frederick


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Shipwright, Captain D.
Wolmer, Viscount


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Perring, William George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Philipson, Mabel
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)
Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Pielou, D. P.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Stanley, Lord
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Privett, F. J.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)



Raeburn, Sir William H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Paling, W.


Attlee, C. R.
Harney, E. A.
Phillipps, Vivian


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harris, Percy A.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barnes, A.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Potts, John S.


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Price, E. G.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Richards, R.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hillary, A. E.
Riley, Ben


Bonwick, A.
Hinds, John
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. A.


Briant, Frank
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Scrymgeour, E.


Broad, F. A.
Hogge, James Myles
Shakespeare, G. H.


Bretherton, J.
Hutchinson, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Irving, Dan
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Burgess, S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, J. Hope


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sinclair, Sir A.


Chapple, W. A.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Charleton, H. C.
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Snell, Harry


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Philip


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Leach, W.
Spoor, B. G.


Darbishire, C. W.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Linfield, F. C.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lowth, T.
Thornton, M.


Duncan, C.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Tillett, Benjamin


Dunnico, H.
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Ede, James Chuter
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Turner, Ben


Edmonds, G.
M'Entee, V. L.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Webb, Sidney


Fairbairn, R. R.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Falconer, J.
March, S.
Weir, L. M.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Welsh, J. C.


Foot, Isaac
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Westwood, J.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Millar, J. D.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Gosling, Harry
Morel, E. D.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mosley, Oswald
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Muir, John W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Wintringham, Margaret


Groves, T.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grundy, T. W.
Newbold, J. T. W.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
O'Connor, Thomas P.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Lunn.

Division No. 273.]
AYES.
[4.45 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Phillipps, Vivian


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Attlee, C. R.
Harney, E. A.
Potts, John S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harris, Percy A.
Price, E. G.


Barnes, A.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Richards, R.


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Riley, Ben


Bonwick, A.
Hillary, A. E.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Bawdler, W. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Briant, Frank
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Royce, William Stapleton


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Salter, Dr. A.


Brotherton, J.
Irving, Dan
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Burgess, S.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Simpson, J. Hope


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Sinclair, Sir A.


Chapple, W. A.
Kenyon, Barnet
Sitch, Charles H.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Leach, W.
Snell, Harry


Collison, Levi
Lee, F.
Snowden, Philip


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Spoor, B. G.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Linfield, F. C.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lowth, T.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thornton, M.


Duffy, T. Gavan
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Tillett, Benjamin


Duncan, C.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Dunnico, H.
M'Entee, V. L.
Turner, Ben


Edmonds, G.
McLaren, Andrew
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
March, S.
Weir, L. M.


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Welsh, J. C.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Westwood, J.


Falconer, J.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Foot, Isaac
Millar, J. D.
Whiteley, W.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Morel, E. D.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Muir, John W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Wintringham, Margaret


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newbold, J. T. W.



Groves, T.
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Mr. Mosley and Mr. Ede.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Paling, W.





NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bruford, R.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Doyle, N. Grattan


Apsley, Lord
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Butcher, Sir John George
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Ellis, R. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cadogan, Major Edward
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Cautley, Henry Strother
Eyres-Monsell. Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Barnston, Major Harry
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.


Becker, Harry
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Flanagan, W. H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Clarry, Reginald George
Foreman, Sir Henry


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Clayton, G. C.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Berry, Sir George
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Frece, Sir Walter de


Betterton, Henry B.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Furness, G. J.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips
Garland, C. S.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Blundell, F. N.
Cope, Major William
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Goff, Sir R. Park


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Brass, Captain W.
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Halstead, Major D.




Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Harrison, F. C.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Harvey, Major S. E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sandon, Lord


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Murchison, C. K.
Shipwright, Captain D.


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Skelton, A. N.


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Hood, Sir Joseph
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Stanley, Lord


Hopkins, John W. W.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Houfton, John Plowright
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Paget, T. G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Hudson, Capt. A.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hume, G. H.
Pease, William Edwin
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hurd, Percy A.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Penny, Frederick George
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Tubbs, S. W.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Perring, William George
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Philipson, Mabel
Wallace, Captain E.


Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Pielou, D. P.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Waring, Major Walter


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Lamb, J. Q.
Privett, F. J.
Wells, S. R.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Rawson Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Remnant, Sir James
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rentoul, G. S.
Winterton, Earl


Lorimer, H. D.
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Wise, Frederick


Lougher, L.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Lumley, L. R.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rodgerson, Captain J. E.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.



Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Manville, Edward
Russell, William (Bolton)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


Margesson, H. D. R.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney



Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of 10 and 11 Geo. V., c. 17, Section 2 (d).)

Paragraph (d) of Section two of the principal Act (which provides for an increase of rent in respect of repairs) is hereby repealed.—[Mr. Brood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. BROAD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The House may be aware that, under the Act of 1920, there was allowed to the landlord a 15 per cent. increase of rent, and, in addition, there was allowed a further 25 per cent., which was to compensate the landlord for the increased cost of repairs. The circumstances at that time were that there had been a long period since the beginning of the War when practically no repairs had been done, and when practically every house wanted re-decoration inside for the sake of health and cleanliness, and the landlords at that time were faced with some increase in wages and a most inflated rise in the cost of materials, so that there may have been at that time some justification
for an increase of rent in consideration of the repairs, if the landlord would do those repairs. We find to-day very different circumstances. In the first place, wages have been reduced very nearly to pre-War level, and the cost of materials has also gone down considerably; but, as a result of our experience in the 2½ years since the Act of 1920, we find that the landlord in almost every case has regarded that 25 per cent. as clear gain to himself, and has failed to do the repairs, which he is morally bound to do. This has occurred in practically every district, and in the case of the majority of houses of the class to which the Act applies.
5.0 P.M.
I know a particular neighbourhood where I am, although the landlord, by his contract, is under an obligation to do these repairs, and in most cases has exacted this increased rent, after worrying for months, and after pathetic appeals to the landlord or his agent, although the houses have had nothing done to them, in many cases, for something like 10 years, the usual reply, if you
are not in any arrears of rent, is, "Tell your father"—or "the old man"—"to come round on Saturday with a pail, and I will give him some whitewash," and the landlord has got the increase of 25 per cent. for the cost of the whitewash. It may be said that provision is made for an appeal to the sanitary inspector, and then, on his certificate, for which a shilling has to be paid, you can apply to the County Court, and get an order. A few did try that experiment, and in almost every case they are very sorry that they spent their shilling. The words in Clause 4 are
a certificate that the house is not in a reasonable state of repair.
Clause 11 says:
If the County Court, on the application of a sitting tenant, is satisfied by the production of the certificate of the sanitary authority and such further evidence (if any) as may be adduced that the dwelling-house is not in a reasonable state of repair,
and so on. Those misguided tenants who have applied to the sanitary inspector find that with his training and association, and the words of the Act, he has a very peculiar idea of what is a statutory repair. His only idea is a state of repair under the Public Health Acts, which is a very different thing from putting a house in a state of repair and decoration suitable to that class of property. That is not provided for in the Bill or in the Act, and the consequence is that, where these applications have been made, the certificate of the sanitary inspector not being in itself sufficient, the house-agent or the landlord has simply called in other house-agents or landlords as evidence on his behalf that the house is in a decent state of repair. The result is that the order has been refused, and in other cases, of which I know several, the landlord has sent a man in at a most inconvenient time, and his employee has simply stripped bare the walls, badly plastered as they were, perhaps washed them down with the water he used for softening the paper, made some little stop in the plaster, put some limewash on the ceiling, and left all the filth about. He has satisfied the sanitary inspector, whose only idea of repair is that laid down in the Public Health Acts. We say that this 25 per cent., if intended for the increased cost of repairs, amounts to obtaining money by false pretences, and there is no protection of the tenant in that
case. We see that the landlord has a considerable advantage to-day compared with what he had in pre-War times. In pre-War times there were occasions when in relation to some property some tenants did not like to move, and did their own internal decorations, although it might be the landlord had undertaken to do them. If tenants, in other cases, found they could get no decorations done, they endeavoured to find some other accommodation, and when the house was empty the landlord, from a sense of shame, did some little repair and redecoration; that was the only way you could often get the thing done. The consequence was that the landlord did have something to pay, though he calculated in measuring up the whole income of the houses for such decorations and repairs and his houses standing empty for a while, so he was not thus in a much worse position. To-day, however, there is no question of a house being empty unless the landlord wills it to be empty for his own purpose. He has no provision to make in one respect, he has no repairs to do in another, as he had to do when the house stood empty. In respect of working-class tenements, if you go to the jobbing builder and decorator and ask him how things are going he will tell you there is nothing doing at all, that the landlord is having nothing done because the tenants cannot help themselves. That is the position.
The 15 per cent. still stands as an advance to the landlord, and is sufficient as a return on such increased expenditure on outlay on the property. He is, I say, fully recouped in comparison with other investments. I am quite prepared to admit that all landlords are not bad landlords, and that all tenants are not good tenants, but the landlord has his remedy against a bad tenant. I am going to say that this Bill in the way it is drafted has no provision for the good tenant against the bad landlord. Dealing with this, let me say there are some good landlords who regard this increase of 40 per cent. as being an unconscionable amount. A good many of them have not increased the rent even 25 per cent. A good many have not increased it above 15 per cent., and there are others, in view of their tenants' feeling on the matter, and knowing their tenants, have not increased the rent at all—though this
latter is rather exceptional. There are a good many cases where the landlord felt perfectly satisfied with the return of 15 per cent. as a recompense to him for the increased amount paid by way of repairs for his property. We have considered this position. In addition to that, by the fact the House has just rejected that last Clause, you are putting every tenant under a reign of terror from his landlord with a consequence that they will not, they dare not, apply for the protection of the Court in this matter to try to get what little protection you give them. For all practical purposes you might as well give a clear advance of 40 per cent. to the landlord.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to second the Motion.
This is not a new point of view to the House. Let me quote from the Minority Report of the Departmental Committee on the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1920, page 47, paragraph 2:
That there should be an immediate reduction of 25 per cent. in all rentals irrespective of the category in winch the house is placed, and that as at Martinmas, 1923, there should be a further reduction of 15 per cent.
The question I should like to put to the House is whether this provision that is sought does not enter into the total contract; that when a party goes to take a house, he has no power to take the house only, he is made to realise that besides taking the house at a certain rent he has to become partly liable for the depreciation and repairs. The business men in this House, I am sure, will agree to this, that when you are selling a certain article you make your conditions. If you hire a machine, say, on the face the hire part of it is represented in depreciation and part of it may be breakage. Just as in machinery, so it should be in everything else. It seems to me that for the first time, so far as I can read the laws of this country, an Act is applied in which, apart from the contract of taking a house, you take it on condition that you must enter as a part partner with a proviso that you pay a certain percentage of possible repairs! If hon. Members look at Clause 11 in the Bill they will see its bearing on what we are moving. In that Clause you admit the necessity of having an outside authority to determine whether
the house is or is not habitable. Here, again, the whole of the citizens who are paying for the services of the sanitary department are going to have their rates increased, because it is going to call for more people in the sanitary department with the necessary skill in order to see that the doors, the fastenings, the glass, the windows, the cords, the blinds and all these things are right, because the inspection which must take place in the sanitary department must be done by a man of skill, so that the property may be put and kept in a proper state of repair. Since the Government suggests putting in the Clauses referred to, I do not see why they should hesitate to accept this proposed new Clause, because it simply means that those who go from the houses are not to become partners in the expense of repairs. Why there should be allowed to creep into any Bill this vicious principle of compelling people to enter into this partnership, whilst denying them other benefits as real partners, I do not see.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Both the Mover and the Seconder of this proposed new Clause have founded their arguments, not so much on the ground of the permitted increase of rent, and not so much where the repairs were properly carried out, as upon the alleged fact that certain landlords have not carried out the work, or have not carried it out sufficiently. But what does the new proposal do? It deals with the unjust and the just alike; whether the landlord is a good landlord or a bad landlord under this proposed new Clause he is to have the permitted increase of rent reduced. It is a fact that in a good number of cases the landlords have even now not exacted the whole amount of the rent, and in their case there is no necessity to introduce a new Clause in order that their rent should be reduced. That has already been done by themselves. What I think we have got to provide against, and here I have the greatest sympathy with hon. Members, is where the landlord is not doing his duty, and where his property is not properly repaired, that he should not be allowed the increased rent. That seems to me to be exactly right, and that is exactly what we are doing in Clauses 4 and 11; yet hon. Members opposite, I think, seem to suggest opposition on the ground that some of this will fall upon the rates.

Mr. HARDIE: I was only showing that the occupier, besides being asked to pay part of the repairs necessary, is paying rates to pay the increase in men necessary for such inspection by the sanitary authority. I hold that it is the business of the landlord to keep his property in repair.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Most certainly it is his duty, and that is his duty according to the Act of 1920. The real purpose which underlies this proposed Clause is carried out, I submit to the House, by Clause 4 and Clause 11. These are selected Clauses to deal with the cases of the bad landlords, and they leave the good landlord alone. To suggest that the good landlord should have his rent reduced seems to me an unwise thing. If you are going to restrict as suggested it is not going to help the building of new houses, and in the second place, you are going to give a good many people the excuse of saying that they are not drawing any income from the houses in order to enable them to carry out the repairs that ought to be done. Do not let us put into the hands of those not anxious to do their duty an excuse that we are not allowing them a sufficient amount of rent for carrying them out! I suggest that the Clause which is now being moved defeats its own object. It will penalise the good landlord, and relieve the unfortunate and bad landlord, and therefore raise up new dangers.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: The Minister of Health does quite right to explain that Clauses 4 and 11 are excellent Clauses for forcing a landlord to keep his house in a proper state of repair, but that is not really part of the logical argument put forward by the Mover of the Amendment as to the amount that he should really increase his rent. The fact is that we have accepted the position of controlling the rent. This position has been accepted by the last two Governments, and that is the position of the Minister himself. I think we may say that we start on that basis: of the rent being controlled, with limitations. The rent was increased by the Act of 1920. The House of Commons at that date did not say, "We consider 40 per cent. in crease should be the figure." They said that they considered the normal increase should be 15 per cent.; and the charges for repairs to the extent of an additional
25 per cent. were put on. Therefore, the Mover of this proposed new Clause is entitled to come forward and say that the 25 per cent. does not now represent the increased cost of repairs. We have to see whether the 25 per cent. continues to represent the increased cost of the repairs. The 25 per cent. was originally granted purely in respect of the increased cost of repairs and for no other reason whatever. That being so, I think we are entitled to ask the Minister of Health to meet us on this point. Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that repairs cost as much now as they did in 1920?

Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order. As this new Clause is a proposal to repeal the whole of paragraph (d), is it in order to discuss whether it should be 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or 15 per cent.?

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Fitzroy): I do not think I can rule it out of order.

Captain BENN: We have to deal with the Amendments on the Paper, and we do not all get an opportunity of moving our Amendments. Two arguments have been put forward, one is that in many cases the repairs are not done at all. There are many cases in Glasgow where it has been proved that the repairs were not done. The second case is that the cost of repairs is not represented by the same figure now as it was in 1920, because in that year we were at the peak of the line representing the cost of building materials and repairs. The cost of houses in 1920 was represented by £1,000, where the same house to-day would only cost £500. The other day the Minister of Health gave an estimate of the cost of materials which show that in September, 1920, taking £100 as the figure for that month, the figure to-day was represented by £59. If that is the case, and if costs are falling in that way, then it is only fair to come here and argue that if 25 per cent. represented the increased cost of repairs in 1920, it must now be modified to suit the reduced cost of repairs to-day. The Minister of Health has not made any attempt whatever to answer that point, and unless some effort is made by an Amendment of the Clause to bring the state of affairs more to correspond with the reality of the situation, I shall support this Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend has addressed himself to the Amendment on the Paper, because no percentage at all is to be allowed on the ground of repairs. I think that is a most unfortunate position in which to put the landlords. I do not wish to criticise unduly my hon. and gallant Friend, but if he wanted to vary that 25 per cent. and make it 20 or 15 per cent., he has had ample opportunities of putting Amendments on the Paper.

Captain W. BENN: Would the hon. Member be prepared to support an Amendment to that effect?

Sir K. WOOD: That is just one of those hypothetical questions which I have always been taught in this House not to answer. My own judgment is that while the cost of materials has decreased slightly since the 25 per cent. was fixed, I doubt whether there is any material difference at the present time. I know my hon. and gallant Friend has been very active in showing how far prices have been maintained in connection with house building, but so far as repairs are concerned, I think hon. Members will find very little difference between what the cost was 12 months or two years ago. My own experience is that there has been very little reduction, and I do not think there is any justification for asking for any variation to be made. If my hon. Friend will examine the accounts of anybody who has owned a house for the last five, six, or seven years, and ascertain what has been spent on repairs, and what they have been able to charge for rent during the whole of that period, he will not by any means be inclined to criticise the amount which has been received as unfair.
When one comes to see the further provisions that have been made in this Bill in Clause 4 and Clause 11, I think quite rightly, it will be found that the very fullest opportunity is given to the tenant, because anyone who has a house which is in a bad state of repair can refuse to pay rent, and if he brings forward the evidence specified under this Bill, he will have an effective means of getting his house put in a good state of repair. Personally, I do not see how you are going to improve matters by striking out this Clause altogether. If we take the whole position and look at
it during the period houses have been under control, no one can say that there has been any undue preference shown to the landlords of the country in that particular direction.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down took part in a Division some two years ago which declared that over 1,000,000 persons employed in a particular industry should have their wages reduced below the standard of 1914. I hear him now arguing that the owners of the houses in which these men live should get an increase of 40 per cent. over the 1914 standard. I would like to know how he can square those two points and remain an honest man. Here we are only asking that the same principle should apply to the owners of houses as apply to the tenants. The tenant is a workman and his wages have been reduced during the last two years, and he has been told from the benches opposite, time and again, that there cannot possibly be any revival in industry or any peace, happiness or contentment until we get back to the 1914 level. We are only proposing here that the question of cost of repairs should not be allowed to cause an increase of the rent and we are proposing to repeal this Clause. At any rate, we are proposing that that particular part of the 1920 Act should be repealed, and I think that is a fairly reasonable claim to put forward. I notice that the Minister of Health did not make any reference whatever to the famous Rent Restrictions Committee which dealt with this question before he became the Minister of Health, but if he will kindly look up the Report of the Onslow Committee, he will find that even the members who signed the Majority Report also signed a reservation in favour of a reduction of the rent for repairs.
I was somewhat chary in taking part in this discussion in view of the attitude and the treatment that has been meted out to Scottish Members in the Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman presided, because he paid absolutely no regard whatever to the position in which the tenants from Scotland would be placed so far as this proposal is concerned, and it was deliberately arranged that the Scottish Members would either have to refrain from attending the Committee, or refrain from being present in
this House when the question of Scottish homes were being considered. I do not think that that is fair treatment. No matter what the opinion of the people of Birmingham may be, I do not think I am doing any injustice to the right hon. Gentleman when I say that he does not know the Scottish position as well as those who represent Scotland. Up to the time control came into operation the landlord was held responsible for the inside repairs, and that is included in the rent. I understand that there is some difference between the Scottish and the English position, and speaking as a member of the Labour party, and in this I believe I am expressing the view of the whole party, we do not want to perpetrate any injustice upon the house owner or place him in any worse position than the ordinary citizen, but the tenant should have power to get what he is entitled to, and which was clearly the intention of the Act.
In 1920, when this provision which we are now seeking to repeal was passed, the arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite were very different to those which the Minister of Health has used this afternoon. We were then told that, because of the high wages and high cost of materials, and the fact that the house-owners had had to submit to control, that they had thereby been placed in a somewhat unfair position compared with other members of the community, and that there was a case for an increase in rent. At that time we agreed, and there was little or no opposition to the proposal that some increase should be allowed, but now that we are getting nearer to the situation which existed in 1914 it is not unreasonable to argue that, circumstances being what they are, the house-owner should be prepared to accept, as we slay in Scotland, the sour with the sweet, and share the disabilities under which we all have to live. The majority of the members of the Onslow Committee recommended to the right hon. Gentleman that he should inquire into the conditions obtaining in the mining industry with regard to the tenancy of houses. There are hundreds of thousands of houses owned by colliery owners. I asserted in Committee, and I do it here, and no hon. Member opposite can disprove my assertion, that this does not mean merely a 40 per cent. increase, but it means 40 per cent. plus the cost of repairs in the
houses that are owned by colliery companies.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to contradict that statement.

Mr. GRAHAM: You cannot disprove it.

Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, I can.

Mr. GRAHAM: If the hon. Member can prove what he asserts, I will withdraw my statement, but he will have to produce documentary evidence. Meantime, there are hundreds of thousands of tenants under the colliery companies who are being compelled to pay 40 per cent. increased rent notwithstanding that this House has determined that their wages shall only be at the rate of 20 per cent. over those obtaining in 1914. You are compelling them to pay to the owner of the houses a 40 per cent. increase in their rent and to bear practically the whole cost of repairs both inside and outside. That is not a fair position for them to be in, and cannot be justified by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to give some serious consideration to this matter. Here is an opportunity for him to at least meet a very reasonable objection to this Bill in so far as a reduction in the amount of rent to cover the increased cost of repairs is concerned. I hope he will meet us here. While I was on Committee he did not make many concessions to our side. I hope he will be prepared to make a concession to-night—particularly on this Clause.
I would have preferred to have gone straightly and boldly for the demand that ought to have been made, namely, that when decontrol comes there should be no statutory provision for any increase of rent over the 1914 standard. We ought to go back to the conditions that then obtained. No matter what excuse may be put forward from the other side of the House, the facts are that the vast majority of the houses in this country will be decontrolled immediately this Bill becomes an Act. There is nothing to prevent it, and there is certainly nothing to prevent a colliery company which owns houses from getting them decontrolled immediately. I should have been pleased if some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who clamour so for fair play would get up and afford us some evidence that they are willing to be equally fair when a
reasonable claim is put forward from this side. It is not reasonable that the wages for the workmen should be reduced to a point only 20 per cent. above the 1914 standard, and that the rent of the house he occupies should be increased 40 per cent. over that standard.

Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: The hon. Member made a direct challenge to anyone to contradict the statement he made that the collier was paying for his repairs twice over. This statement was made previously in Committee upstairs, and I then ventured very much to doubt its accuracy. Since then I have taken the trouble to ascertain the facts, and, as far as South Yorkshire and the Federated area is concerned, I am able to assert that the statement is absolutely incorrect. I took the trouble to look at the accounts of one particular concern, and these showed the rents of the houses and the cost of repairs. These particular accounts are kept entirely separate from the colliery accounts, and the repairs are not charged against the workmen's wages in any way. That is the practice as far as the Federated area is concerned. Hon. Members opposite have their own accountants and auditors who can inspect these accounts; indeed they do inspect them, and they can state whether what I have said is, or is not, correct. If they deny that what I have said is the practice in South Yorkshire and the Federated area, I shall be very much surprised.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: It is no good the hon. Gentleman making a statement of that sort, unless he is prepared to tell us that those he represents will allow us to see the individual accounts.

Mr. ROBERTS: The auditors can see them.

Mr. GRAHAM: Oh, but they dare not tell.

Mr. ROBERTS: After that statement, showing the hon. Member's distrust of his own auditors, I need say no more.

Mr. HARRIS: I happen to be a member of the housing committee of the London County Council. We have very large pre-War estates; we have many houses which were built before the War, and these houses, compared with ordinary privately-owned houses are kept on a very high standard of repair. There is a
proper organisation for repairing them, the woodwork is painted at fixed intervals, and other repairs are carried out regularly, both inside and outside. Of course the internal condition of these houses is vastly superior to that of ordinary privately-owned houses. We have just had before us the accounts of these houses, and they show a surplus of something like £33,000 per year. That is a very substantial surplus, and it is estimated by the council's controller that, owing to the reduced cost of labour, the net profits after paying interest, repairs and the cost of maintenance and providing a sinking fund will be increased from £33,000 to £45,000. That shows that the percentage provided under this Bill is too large. I was one of those who voted for a reduced rent. I have felt that the 40 per cent. ought not to be taken full advantage of. In the case of the London County Council it has been argued that the public authority is justified in taking this large profit out of the pre-War municipal tenants, because they have made such a big loss on the post-War houses. To my mind that argument does not hold good. It certainly does not hold good with the ordinary owner of houses which are let out to the working classes. The county council is subsidising the new houses; the State too is subsidising them out of State funds, while the municipal authorities subsidise them out of the rates. On the other hand the houses built by private enterprise are built for the purpose of making a profit and the rents are fixed accordingly. The figures I am able to show prove that the 40 per cent. allowed under the Act of 1919 is too large. I do not say this particular Clause is perfect, but I do think the Minister who is responsible should reduce the margin.

Mr. TREVELYAN: The Debate shows that experience differs in different parts of the country. Some of my hon. Friends behind me have cited cases where the full rent has not been raised. No doubt there are many cases of that kind, but all I can say is that in the districts about which I know most—the poorer districts of Newcastle-on-Tyne—that is not the case at all. I have gone into this question rather closely. I feel very deeply indeed on this question of repairs. What has been happening in the poorer districts of Newcastle, and no doubt in similar districts in many other towns, is that the landlords
have not only exacted the 40 per cent. which was their due, but have secured as much as 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. This has been discovered, and large numbers of tenants have been able to exact repayment. Many thousands of pounds have had to be returned by the landlords to the tenants in the last two years—representing money which they have illegally exacted. But I do not want to dwell upon that. The question is what have they done with the legal 40 per cent. Have they, in fact, made the repairs they were supposed to make? I have been in a very large number of streets—poor streets, moderately poor streets, and moderately well-to-do streets. In some of the moderately well-to-do it is true that the landlords have made the repairs, but in the very poor streets they have practically not done it at all. You really cannot find any place in which they have made these repairs. That is a very serious state of things.
I have no doubt the same condition obtains in a very large part of the poorer districts in all our large towns. This is a drastic proposal. I quite agree that a very great grievance exists. The law as it stands is a mockery to millions of our fellow countrymen. It is not enough to say, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that a remedy is provided in Clause 11. Even if it is a remedy—and I am not going into the question whether or not it is a sufficient one—the fact remains that it means that the aggrieved tenants, to the numbers of millions, are left to go to law against their landlords. That is not the sort of remedy which ought to be available. If the landlords are ready to use this increased rent for making repairs, well and good, but leave it to them to prove that they are making the repairs and then to go to the Court and ask for the increased rent. That would be a real remedy. It is the sort of remedy which is required for a grievance which is so universal. It is not sufficient to say that hundreds of thousands of our fellow countrymen should be driven to enter upon litigation against their landlords in order to secure their rights. Yet that is the only remedy which is offered them. It is not good enough.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: This Amendment has a very wide scope. It appears to me to be getting rid of the whole of
the Act of 1920. May I suggest that hon. Members opposite who have spoken have not dealt with the answer given by the Minister in the first few sentences of his speech. They have avoided it. The Minister said that the real practical way out of this difficulty has already been found by this Bill. It is that the good landlord who does the repairs shall receive the amount he is entitled to under the Act, but the bad landlord who has not done repairs shall not be allowed to receive the additional rent provided. Hon. Members do not seem to me to have answered that at all. Another point raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) was that in which he said that it was not fair the landlord should be entitled to a 40 per cent. increase on the rent when during the last two years the workmen had suffered a considerable reduction of wages. He claimed that the additional rent provided under the Act of 1920 was unfair under those circumstances.
I think the House ought to remember, in order to give fair play to both sides, what the circumstances have been in regard to increased wages and in regard to increased rents on these small houses. It was not until a good many years after the War commenced that the Legislature gave any increase at all to the owners of small houses, and the first increase that was given to them, after several years, was only 10 per cent., while up to 1920, when the working man and a good many other sections of the community were receiving remuneration as much as 170 per cent. over the rates of payment in 1914, the landlord of the small house was the one person in the whole community who was not allowed to profit by that increase. The owner of the small house, until 1920, was only allowed a very little towards the extra cost of living, which fell upon him equally with other sections of the community. I have already mentioned in this House on another occasion, and I beg leave to repeat it now, that the "Labour Gazette" has shown that, during the whole period, from the outbreak of War until now, the average increase in the cost of rent has been less than 50 per cent., including the 25 per cent. which is now objected to, the 15 per cent. that was given towards the cost of living, and the balance that was given for the purpose of meeting the increased cost of mortgages; while during that period
most of the community were receiving remuneration corresponding to the full increase in the cost of living, namely, as I have just said, 170 per cent. or thereabouts above the rates obtaining in 1914.
If, therefore, we are going to discuss the whole basis of the Act of 1920, which gave the landlord a quite belated recompense towards the additional cost that he had been bearing during those last years of the War, surely, we ought to look round and see how he was treated during the earlier years. If we are to go into this question of the 40 per cent. we should need to go into it pretty fully, and, on a Bill like this, which only purports to deal with a certain number of points in connection with the matter, I do not think the House is prepared to discuss an issue of this kind without some notice that it was going to be raised in this broad fashion. I do not know the basis on which the 40 per cent. was divided up into 25 per cent. and 15 per cent. The 25 per cent. was, no doubt, owing to the increased cost of repairs, but I think there are a good many people who, if they had had to divide up the increase allowed to the landlords, would not have divided it up in that way. If my hon. Friends opposite were in a position to show that the increase in the cost of repairs had fallen since 1920 to something less than 25 per cent., it would certainly be for the landlords to say that they never received anything like what they ought to have receivd towards the extra cost of living in the small increase of 15 per cent. My hon. Friends may take it, if they are going to discuss the whole question of the 40 per cent., that there will be a lot to be said on both sides. There will be a lot to be said about the 15 per cent.—just as much as has been said by them about the 25 per cent. I do not think, however, that this is the occasion for going into the roots of the Act of 1920, but if that were done I think it would be found that the owners of small houses would be able at this moment to put forward a claim, on the merits, for not less than the 40 per cent. which they are entitled to receive under the Act of 1920.

Mr. McENTEE: It has often been said that by judicious selection of figures you can prove anything, and I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has
most certainly, if he has done nothing else, judiciously selected his figures. I should like to point out that, when the 40 per cent. was fixed and was divided up into 15 per cent. for the one purpose and 25 per cent. for the other, that 40 per cent. was fixed by a House the great majority of which consisted of landlords and the friends of landlords, and the landlords themselves, outside the House, expressed themselves all over the country as being perfectly satisfied with the bargain they had got. The hon. Member who has just spoken is perfectly well aware that his friends the landlords were satisfied with the bargain they had got. After all, before 1914, the existing rent, including all repairs, which the landlords were then able to extract from the tenants, paid them, generally, reasonably handsomely.
There is no one in this House who has any knowledge of the building trade or of house property who would not admit that, before 1914, the standard conditions in regard to housing in this country were infinitely better than they are at the present time. I gave to the Minister himself, and I want to remind him of it again, because of the arguments that have been used in this House to-day, a particular instance. I do not want to go into it in detail, but I can reproduce it now from inquiries that I have since made in my own constituency and in several other constituencies within the London area, where the landlord, having taken the opinion of eminent King's counsel, has been informed that we cannot get at him in any Court, in spite of the existing Act, and that he can continue to do what he is doing as a very general fact. It is this: When the sanitary authority calls upon him to put a house into a proper sanitary condition and into proper repair, within the terms used in the Act, he simply strips the paper from the walls—I can take anyone to several instances of it within a two hours' journey of this House—he has the ceilings whitewashed, generally by inefficient, cheap labour, and, having done that, he walks out and leaves the place with the dirty streaks of water that, as someone has said, was used for the purpose of softening the paper on the walls. That is being done all over the place at the present time where the landlord is compelled to do
the repairs, and in most cases, knowing that this condition of things is in operation, the tenants prefer to keep the old paper on the walls, in spite of its insanitary condition, rather than have imposed upon them the conditions that I have just mentioned.
The result is that the landlord is taking the 25 per cent., and I want to put it to the House that, if a man takes 25 per cent. of the net rent week by week and year by year from the tenant, as is now being done, and if he does not do the repairs for doing which that money was given to him, that man is a thief. There is no other word that fits the case. And if the Minister knows that that is being done—and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot deny that this is being done, that he is perfectly well aware of it, that the officials of his own Department must have reported to him the complaints that have gone up from local authorities all over the country—he ought to confer with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and prosecute some of these people for thieving. That ought to be done if there were any grain of honesty left at all in this House of Commons. I know perfectly well that, if any of us outside the House who are workmen were to do this kind of thing we should find ourselves in the Police Court or some other Court, being prosecuted for illegal practices, but there is no attempt to prosecute the landlord at all. He is encouraged in every way possible to swindle the public, and he is doing so in a great number of cases under this Act. I am not arguing, and I should not be justified in arguing, that all landlords are doing the same thing, but I have given an instance which, on the estate in question, is occurring frequently, and it applies to the vast majority of houses in the constituency in which I live. The gentleman who gave his name to that estate sits in this House of Commons at the present time below the Gangway on this side. I am not blaming him personally for it, but that is going on on that estate. We have had to come forward and ask the Minister for a remedy, and I suggest to him that he is not acting straight with the House in his reply. He says, "You are not fair; you are taking away from the good landlord so as to punish the bad landlord." It is quite reasonable to argue that the good
landlord should have something to pay him for the repairs he does, but in the same speech the right hon. Gentleman admitted that there are bad landlords who are not doing the work. It is not common honesty, and I charge him with dishonesty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—I charge the Minister with gross dishonesty—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member should not make those charges against the Minister.

Mr. McENTEE: Then I charge the Government with gross dishonesty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] No, I am not going to withdraw. I charge the Government, and I say that the Minister, as the Member of the Government responsible for this particular Department, has admitted himself here to-day that there are landlords who are not giving the tenants that for which the tenants are paying. Will anyone argue that it is not dishonesty for a man to take what the Act of Parliament allows him to take, when he is supposed to give, in return for that 25 per cent., certain things to the people who are his tenants, and it is perfectly well known to the Minister that those landlords are not giving that for which they are taking this money, and he comes back and says, "If you hit these fellows, what about the good landlords?" Why does not the Minister come forward and say, "These people are acting dishonestly by taking money from the tenants to which they are not entitled, and I, as the Minister responsible for this Department, and entrusted by the people with the administration of the law in regard to this matter, will put down a Clause myself"? He did so in Committee; why does he not do so now?

Sir P. PILDITCH: Why does not the hon. Member refer straightforwardly to Clauses 4 and 11, which deal with the very matters of which he is speaking?

Mr. McENTEE: I know all about Clauses 4 and 11, just as much as the hon. Member does, and I say, after having read and understood them, that they do not cover this point. I said so to the Minister upstairs, and the assurance that the Minister gives is no assurance at all. It does not cover the point that dishonest landlords are taking money deliberately, knowing that they are taking it without giving that which
they ought to give in return. It is said that the tenant can go to the County Court, but it is well known that, in practice he does not go. No cases can be produced in which he does go in circumstances like this. We know what happens. These poor people, or the majority of them, at any rate, are afraid of the County Court.
6.0 P.M.
They know nothing about it. It is something right above them and away from them. They are afraid of it altogether and, consequently, they do not go. But you know the landlord will go to it, and generally does, when the County Court is needed on his behalf. It has been proved by an hon. Member below the Gangway, speaking with a knowledge of the London County Council. I also have had close connection with the housing estates of the London County Council. I put it to any practical builder in the House, where the repairs are being done by the landlord it is the exception rather than the rule where it is costing anything like 25 per cent. It is very rare, and then only in cases where considerable structural alterations have to be undertaken to put the house into decent condition. Twenty-five per cent. is excessive and the Minister knows it, and it is up to him to come forward with some suggestion and say, "We will meet you half-way and do away with this condition of robbery that is going on, enabling landlords to take that which they are not entitled to take. "The Minister does not care to do that. He has a bias on behalf of private enter prise. He is doing very well out of private enterprise and so are all of you over there. But you did not come here to represent private enterprise. You are here to represent the tenants and the people generally living in your constituencies. Foolish they were, it is true, to send you here, but you would not dare to go to your constituencies and tell them that when it comes to a question of deciding between the public and private enterprise you always have a bias in favour of private enterprise. You tell them something entirely different from that and they, fools as they are, send you here. But by and by they will wake up. A few of them are waking up and you know it, and because you know it you fear them. If the Government is honest, if it
has at heart the well-being of all the people, instead of the few private enter prisers, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—and this I challenge him to contradict—that large numbers of landlords are taking that money and giving nothing in return for it at all to the tenants. He knows that is a dishonest practice and as a Minister of the Crown it is his duty to protect the tenants and prevent the landlords from taking that to which they are not entitled, certainly if they never give any services to the tenants in return for the money they have illegally taken out of their pockets.

Mr. SHINWEL: The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) has challenged us to reply to what he regarded as the strongest argument submitted by the right hon. Gentleman on this Clause. That argument, so far as I understand it, is simply that there must be some discrimination between the good and the bad landlords in order to protect the tenant himself. Prior to the passing of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restriction Act or any of the Acts associated with this question, there was no difficulty at all. As a matter of fact more repairs were done before the passing of these Acts than have been done since, and that without any additional payment on the part of the tenant, and I cannot see for the life of me why there should be any discrimination as between one kind of landlord and another. After all, if the house is let at all and is to be tenanted it may be reasonably assumed that it is in a proper condition for tenancy, and in that case it is reasonable to assume that a proper rent should be paid for it, but unless it complies with this condition no landlord, whether good or bad, is entitled to charge any rent at all. Something has been said about Clauses 4 and 11, and it has been argued that there is a simple remedy which the tenant may take if he feels aggrieved. I am one of those who have gone to the County Court to test this self-same question. On one occasion I was sued by a landlord for non-payment of increase of rent. I went to the Court to defend myself and I argued, perhaps not very learnedly as was quite natural under the circumstances, that the landlord was not entitled to impose an increase of rent on the ground of repairs because he had not executed any repairs for two or three years prior to the charge
being imposed. This took place in the Sheriff Court in Glasgow. The learned Judge pointed out that he had no power under the existing Acts to interpret what were reasonable repairs. I argued that since knobs had fallen off the doors and windows had become cracked and sometimes smashed and that the plaster in the corridor was in an exceedingly bad condition, the house was not in a reasonable state of repair, but the Judge said that had nothing to do with him at all. What he was concerned about was that I should receive from the sanitary authority a certificate showing that the house was in an insanitary condition. Of course I could not argue, and certainly I could not go to the sanitary authority and ask for a certificate, that the house was in an insanitary condition because, being reasonably careful tenants, we saw to it that tilt house did not get into an insanitary condition.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Has the hon. Member read the Bill and found in it that he will be able to go to the sanitary authority and get a certificate that the house is not in a reasonable state of repair, which means not a good and tenantable state of repair, so that the state of things of which he complains is now being remedied by the Bill?

Mr. SHINWELL: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have read the Bill. I was pointing out the condition of affairs under the existing Acts. I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's remark that he agrees with me that such a state of affairs as I have indicated could arise under the existing Acts. May I point out the very great difficulty that exists in approaching the sanitary authorities? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] It is not always desirable for tenants to ask for that certificate from the sanitary authority. It involves in many cases a certain inconvenience because working class tenants have not always the time to go philandering round looking for documents in order to justify themselves if they approach the Court. But entirely apart from that, even under the existing proposals, under Clauses 4 and 11, where the sanitary authority is empowered to grant a certificate that the house is not in a reasonable state of repair, is there any reason to assume that the sanitary authority will grant such a certificate if the house is in need of repairs such as
I have indicated? The sanitary authority will determine its course of action solely on the ground of whether the house is sanitary or not and will not regard the question of reasonable repairs as coming within its purview at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: What the hon. Member is now dealing with seems to be the subject of an Amendment which I was proposing to call on Clause 15, in the name of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb). We cannot have it twice over. We had better not cover that point on this Amendment.

Mr. SHINWELL: I was trying to traverse a point which had been put by other hon. Members. I am quite prepared to leave it, though I think it is vital to this Amendment. However, I think I can find other arguments as logical and valid as those I have submitted. May I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman, since questions have been asked of us? Why were the increases of rent imposed on the ground of repairs? Why was this imposition charged on the tenant? I will reply to the question in this way. I am assuming that these increases were imposed because there was an increase of the price of the material which had to be utilised when the repairs were executed. The natural assumption from that is that as the price of material for repairs diminishes there ought to be a reduction in the amount imposed for repairs. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to be logical we will give him any amount of logic, which he can use as he pleases. There is no proposal from the other side that there should be any diminution in price. Yet they themselves have admitted that there has been a diminution in the price of building material for this purpose. I want to dissociate myself from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain Benn), who remarked that this was a very drastic proposal, and he would not be prepared to go as far as we would. I do not regard it as a drastic proposal at all. It it can be argued that there ought to be additional recompense for landlords because of the cost of building material, because of the increased charges which arose out of the War, it might very well have been applied to rent alone, and not have been chargeable because of increased repairs. In my
own case the landlord would do no repairs at all. Indeed, he would do fewer repairs after the Act came into operation than he did in years gone by, and that was the experience of thousands of tenants who lived in the same district, and for whom, on occasions, I had to speak in the Glasgow Town Council. I can understand the position of hon. Members who have lived in houses such as I have lived in. On the occasion I refer to I was living in a three-roomed tenement house because I could not get another place, and very largely because I could not afford to pay more rent than the landlord was imposing on me. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) argues that if I have paid an increase on the ground of repairs and am getting nothing for it I have my remedy, and I can go to Court or to the sanitary authority. But there was no case for going there, because I could not claim that the house was in an insanitary condition. My case is, that if there is to be an increase of rent let it be an increase of rent, and not an increase on the ground of repairs. Since there has not been the requisite amount of repairs done, I argue that there ought to be a repeal of this Clause.
May I reply to an observation of the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who probably thought he was arguing with great force and conviction, that we ought not to take away from the landlord what must be regarded as a belated recompense? What is the obvious reply? It is true that the case we are dealing with did not come into operation immediately after the War, when wages had increased and when the working classes occupying the housed that we are dealing with benefited very largely from the artificial prosperity of the War period; but it must be admitted that, as a result of the increased wages paid, and the regularity of employment, the landlords who were the owners of working-class houses received their rents more quickly and with greater regularity than ever before. To that extent they were gainers, and they had no ground for complaint. Therefore, they cannot argue that there was any belated recompense in their case. There is no case for the imposition of the increase on the ground of repairs, whatever may be said for the increase on the ground of rent.

Sir JOHN SIMON: There are two questions raised by this Amendment, and I do not feel sure that they have been kept entirely separate. I listened carefully to the speech of the Minister, and as far as I was able to follow him I do not think he dealt with one of the two questions. The first question is that in 1920 Parliament thought it well to enact that there should be a permitted addition of rent, where the landlord is responsible for the whole of the repairs, to an amount not exceeding 25 per cent. of the net rent. Assuming that was right then, can 25 per cent. be right now? That question was put by the Mover of the Amendment very persuasively. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Wedgwood Benn) called attention to some answers, and urged that when Parliament was dealing with this question in 1920 it was dealing with it at a time when the price of materials was very heavy. That argument has been reinforced by the very practical illustration given by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), who said, speaking of the great estate of the London County Council—he can speak with authority, because he is a member of the Housing Committee—that figures recently drawn up showed that the 25 per cent. resulted in the case of the London County Council houses, which are kept in a very high state of repair, in a charge which involved a very large profit to the landlord. If that is the case, there must be some answer to the suggestion that 25 per cent. fixed in 1920 cannot be the right figure for the House of Commons to pass by without alteration in 1923. I may be mistaken, but I did not hear from the right hon. Gentleman the slightest attempt to answer that point.
An answer was attempted by one hon. Member, who urged that possibly the figure of 25 per cent. was not the right figure but that what people gained on the swings they lost on the roundabouts, and that it would all turn out right in the end. I cannot conceive that Parliament proposes to continue a provision of this sort unless it can be justified on its merits. It was a sufficiently curious thing in 1920 for Parliament to say that the landlord might add 25 per cent. of the net rent to the rent if he was responsible for repairs, without laying down any condition as to whether he should effect the
repairs, or whether the repairs needed to be effected. Be that as it may, it cannot be right to leave 25 per cent. uncorrected, unless those who give the House responsible information on this subject from the Ministry of Health are prepared to say that their information leads them to think that the situation in 1923 is the same as it was in 1920.
The other question is quite distinct, and that is, whether or not it is right to go on with the provision which authorises the landlord to charge an increased rent without giving effective security that he makes the repairs which are supposed to be represented by that increase. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has some Clauses in this Bill which seek to deal with that question, but we must not discuss those Clauses in detail now. It is a little difficult to believe that the poorest class of tenant, the man with the least knowledge and the least experience, and the man least likely to go to the County Court, is to get anything out of it if he has to get the sanitary authority to give him a certificate, and then he has to take the certificate to the County Court, and then it is to be a matter of defence for future demands for future increase of rent. That is an elaborate way of securing a plain right—the right that if Parliament thinks well to add to a man's statutory rent at least there should be some effective security that the landlord gives that which is supposed to be represented by the increased rent.
The first question whether 25 per cent. is the right percentage to continue has not been dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman used a very natural Parliamentary device. He said, "I have examined the Amendment, and I do not think it is in very happy form. I find that it is going to sweep away this provision and is going to impose the same punishment upon the good and the bad landlord; upon the man who has done repairs and the man who has not." That is a perfectly good criticism to the form of the Amendment, but surely, it is in the interests of the House of Commons and I think it is in the interests of a very large number of our fellow citizens outside that we should know whether it is the view of the Government that 25 per cent. added to the standard rent which was said to be the
right figure when prices were at their highest in 1920 is the right figure in July, 1922.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH: (Lord Eustace Percy): Dealing with the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, it is a mistake to believe that the tenant has to go through all the various processes which he outlined. It is true that the tenant must go to the sanitary authority. The right hon. Gentleman says he must then go from the sanitary authority to the County Court. He need not do anything of the kind. It is for the landlord to go to the County Court. The tenant can withhold the increase of rent on the certificate.

Sir J. SIMON: He has to serve it on the landlord.

Lord E. PERCY: That is true. Hon. Members remember the existence of Clause 4 and Clause 11, but they have unanimously forgotten the existence of Clause 15, which provides that the sanitary authority may specify, and shall specify, what repairs are required, so that there can be no question of stripping the paper, whitewashing, and so forth. The sanitary authority is required to specify what works are necessary, and the landlord has to get, subsequently, a certificate from the sanitary authority that the repairs have been carried out. That part of the right hon. Gentleman's question has been fairly answered. As to the question whether the 25 per cent. increase, which ex hypothesi was necessary in 1920, is necessary now, I am not prepared to admit that 25 per cent. was sufficient in 1920. When the Salisbury Committee reported, by no means the highest peak of building prices had been reached! That did not come until considerably later, and I do not believe that the 25 per cent. in many cases was sufficient. The hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) gave the instance of the London County Council houses. Those are houses the vast majority of which have been built within the last 20 years, and they have been kept in a regular state of repair.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The superiority of public ownership over private ownership.

Lord E. PERCY: I accept that compliment from the hon. Member, as I am an old member of the London County Council. It is true that if you take the best type of house, the most recently built type of house, the house which has been most regularly looked after, that 25 per cent. was not too much until the last two years. As the London County Council knows, and as the hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green knows, there was a deficit on those houses up to 1921. In the case of those London County Council houses, the 25 per cent. increase was not sufficient up to 1921, so that we are only dealing with the last two years, in that case. In the last two years, no doubt, the amount of repairs needed on that class of house may not be much. The cost of repairs has come down to a certain extent, but not to anything like the extent of the fall in the cost of building new houses. Any hon. Member who has had any repairs to do, or who knows anything about repairing houses, knows that the fall has not been nearly so much as the fall that is measured by the tenders for local authority schemes for new houses.
Our object is to ensure that as far as we can these houses are repaired. The whole Bill is framed for that purpose. Its restrictive provisions and its penal provisions are framed for that purpose. If you reduce the amount of the permitted increase you will reduce the profits now being made out of houses by the London County Council and a few other favoured landlords; but what of the mass of property which is not in that condition, which no doubt owing to the failures and the faults of past landlords have gradually sunk into a state of disrepair? Are you going to get those houses repaired by reducing the amount of rent which is allocated to the repairs? Our object is to give as great facilities and as great an incentive as possible to get these houses repaired, and I submit that an Amendment of this kind will only have the result of making it more difficult and more doubtful whether we should get houses repaired, simply in order to satisfy a theoretical grudge which one happens to feel.

Mr. PRINGLE: The Noble Lord has not met the case which has been put from this side of the House. The first point is that the repairs for which provision
was made have not been executed, and that, therefore, large numbers of landlords have been charging an increased rent in respect of expense to which they have never been put. It is now suggested that the certificate of the sanitary authority will be an adequate protection, but I would remind the Minister of Health and the Noble Lord that their predecessors, when the last Bill was going through, assured the House that the provision in regard to the sanitary authority would be an adequate protection to the tenant. Everybody knows that it has been entirely inadequate, and even though these provisions are now strengthened, we all know how difficult it is for a tenant, who is aware of the risks which he runs when the period of control comes to an end, to take any action which is going to bring him into conflict with the landlord. So that on the first point, that in a large number of cases the landlord is saving money in respect of repairs which he has not executed, there has been no answer. More than that, the question further arises whether the existing provisions for repairs is not too much. There was a doubt, even in 1920 when the original Act was passed, whether at that time this House was not allowing too much to the landlord. There was an Amendment on that occasion from the other side in which it was suggested that the percentage allowable for repairs should be 20 and not 25 per cent. The argument then put forward was that these repairs are executed as a rule for a period of five years, and that if you allow 25 per cent. the landlord, in the period intervening between the repairs, would be getting 1¼ years' rent, which was too much. If that was so then—and the case was made out at that time and has been confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green—surely the time has come to revive the percentage. It may be true that the reduction in the cost of repairs has not been so great as the reduction in the cost of building houses, but there has been a reduction, and if 25 per cent. was the figure fixed when the costs were from 2½ to 3 times the cost of pre-War days, surely there is now a strong case for a reduction. The Government have closed their minds to the fact that it is obvious that all those landlords who have not been doing their duty, and keeping their
houses in decent repair, are going to make a profit out of it. Why should they be allowed to make a profit simply because they have not done their duty, and are we now to put in a figure rewarding those who have not done their duty in the matter of repairs? As the Government have shown no indication that they will revise the percentage now allowed in

respect of repairs, I hope that my hon. Friends above the Gangway will persist in the Amendment and challenge a decision in the matter.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 248.

Division No. 274.]
AYES.
[6.35 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Harris, Percy A.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hastings, Patrick
Potts, John S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Richards, R.


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, C. R.
Hemmerde, E. G.
Riley, Ben


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A.
Herriotts, J.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Batey, Joseph
Hill, A.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hillary, A. E.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Bonwick, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowdler, W. A.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Saklatvala, S.


Briant, Frank
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Salter, Dr. A.


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Scrymgeour, E.


Brotherton, J.
Irving, Dan
Sexton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Burgess, S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Charleton, H. C.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Simpson, J. Hope


Collison, Levi
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sinclair, Sir A.


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Kenyon, Barnet
Sitch, Charles H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Leach, W.
Snell, Harry


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Snowden, Philip


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Spoor, B. G.


Duncan, C.
Linfield, F. C.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Ede, James Chuter
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Edmonds, G.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Tillett, Benjamin


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Fairbairn, R. R.
M'Entee, V. L.
Turner, Ben


Falconer, J.
McLaren, Andrew
Wellhead, Richard C.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Warne, G. H.


Foot, Isaac
Macpherson Rt. Hon. James I.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
March, S.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Weir, L. M.


Gosling, Harry
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Westwood, J.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Millar, J. D.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Morel, E. D.
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Muir, John W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wintringham, Margaret


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.



Hardie, George D.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harney, E. A.
Phillipps, Vivian
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Ammon.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Barnston, Major Harry
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Becker, Harry
Brass, Captain W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Apsley, Lord
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brittain, Sir Harry


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Berry, Sir George
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Betterton, Henry B.
Bruford, R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Buckingham, Sir H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Blundell, F. N.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pielou, D. P.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Butcher, Sir John George
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Price, E. G.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Privett, F. J.


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Remer, J. R.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Remnant, Sir James


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rentoul, G. S.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Houfton, John Plowright
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Clarry, Reginald George
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hughes, Collingwood
Rodgerson, Captain J. E.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hume, G. H.
Rothschild, Lionel de


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurd, Percy A.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Cope, Major William
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Russell, William (Bolton)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sandon, Lord


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
King, Capt Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lamb, J. Q.
Shepperson, E. W.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shipwright, Captain D.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Singleton, J. E.


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Skelton, A. N.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lorden, John William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lorimer, H. D.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Ednam, Viscount
Lort-Williams, J.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Lord


Ellis, R. G.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lumley, L. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Manville, Edward
Thornton, M.


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Flanagan, W. H.
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Foreman, Sir Henry
Mercer, Colonel H.
Tubbs, S. W.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Wallace, Captain E.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Waring, Major Walter


Furness, G. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wells, S. R.


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Murchison, C. K.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Greaves-Lord, Walter
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Winterton, Earl


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wise, Frederick


Gretton, Colonel John
Norton-Griffiths. Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Wolmer, Viscount


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Paget, T. G.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Pease, William Edwin
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Halstead, Major D.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Penny, Frederick George
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Harrison, F. C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harvey, Major S. E.
Perring, William George
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Philipson, Mabel

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to business premises.)

(1) The principal Act, as amended by this Act, shall apply to any premises used for business, trade, or professional purposes, or for the public service, as it applies to a dwelling-house, and as though references to a "dwelling-house," "house," and "dwell-
ing," included reference to any such premises, but the principal Act, as amended by this Act in its application to such premises, shall have effect subject to the following modifications:
(a) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c), Subsection (1), of Section two of the principal Act:

(c) In addition to any such amounts as aforesaid an amount not exceeding thirty-five per centum of the net rent;
(b) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d)of Subsection (1) of Section five of the principal Act:

(d)The premises are reasonably required by the landlord for business trade or professional purposes or for the public service, and (except as otherwise provided by this Subsection) the Court is satisfied that alternative accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available;
(c) The following paragraph shall be added after paragraph (g)of the same Sub-section:

(h) The premises are bonâ fide required for the purpose of a scheme of reconstruction or improvement which appears to the Court to be desirable in the public interest;
(d) Paragraph (i) of the same Sub-section shall not apply;
(e) Sections nine and ten of the principal Act shall not apply.

(2) The application of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, to such premises as aforesaid shall not extend to a letting or tenancy in any market or fair where the rent or conditions of tenancy are controlled or regulated by or in pursuance of any Statute or charter.—[Mr. Rhys Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. DAVIES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The House will remember that in 1920 a Select Committee was appointed by this House to inquire into the agitation, which was conducted in some parts of the country, with the object of including in the Rent Restrictions Act of 1920 business premises, lock-up shops, offices and buildings of that kind. Strangely enough, in spite of the fact that the Committee reported that these buildings ought to be included, the Government of the day, which is not the present Government—though there is not very much difference between the two I agree—took no heed of the recommendations of the Committee. I may refer to a few passages from those recommendations. The Committee said:
Your Committee are satisfied upon evidence that a substantial number of tenants are being compelled to submit to what appears to be an unconscionable
increase of rent in order to retain possession of their business premises, and in a number of cases they have been dispossessed of business premises without being given any option whatever to retain them for themselves.
I confess that the Amendment is moved partly because of two specific cases of hardship which have been brought to my notice. I hope that hon. Members on the other side, who are probably even more in touch than we are with little shopkeepers who are struggling against adversity in trying to build up a business, will take note of these cases. In the city where I live a man built up a chemist's business and occupied a lock-up shop for 15 years at a rental of £400 per annum. When those 15 years came to an end the landlord offered to renew the lease on condition that the tenant would pay him a premium of £2,000 down, and the renewed lease was to be for not more than seven years. £2,000 divided up into seven years, taking interest into account, meant an increase of rent to that chemist of 100 per cent. In other words, his rent, instead of being £400, would have been £800. The local assessment committee, of course, would then take into account the increased value of the premises, and the rates would increase proportionately. No hon. Member on the other side will for a moment stand up and argue in favour of a transaction of that kind. This man to whom I refer could not find the £2,000 and he was compelled to give up the business in which he had secured a decent living for 15 years.
I could give another case quite as bad. I know that I shall be told by some hon. Members who know the law better than I do, that an action at Common Law could be taken in a case of that kind. I do not know whether it could or not One thing is obvious, to me, at any rate, and that is that the owner of property of that kind is not justified in swooping down upon a shopkeeper tenant when he has built up a business by diligence, by thrift and by capacity, to ask £2,000 premium for the renewal of the lease. If the Amendment is carried it will relieve many cases of that kind. [An HON. MEMBER: "It will not touch that case at all."] It would have a salutary effect on cases of that kind. Such cases are occurring every day. I have another case in mind which would fall within the category which may be in the mind of my interruptor. We are prepared to
accept any wording which the Minister can suggest in order to meet the cases we have in view. Strangely enough, it has fallen to the Labour party to deal with these cases. I thought that hon. Members on the other side were sent to this House to deal with such cases. The people for whom we are speaking are not working folk in the ordinary sense. They have started businesses on their own account. They are struggling within the capitalist system, but, so far as I am concerned, when a small capitalist is bullied by a big capitalist, I mean to stand for the little capitalist. That is the intention of the Amendment. I feel sure that I shall have the support of hon. Members opposite, except, of course, that of hon. Members who represent big capital.
There is a very serious point in the proposal which I am making. I know a case that is now in dispute, where two ladies have built up a business; they are to be evicted simply because they cannot afford to pay the increased rent demanded by the owner of the property. The point I wish to make is this: Whenever a person enters into business on his own account he creates a goodwill in that business, and under the law as it stands that goodwill is destroyed for ever when the landlord increases the rent beyond the capacity of the tenant. The shopkeeper in this case is not allowed an opportunity to make arrangements with an incoming tenant to transfer the goodwill. I trust that I have made that point clear to the House. I shall be told from the other side that the case of the small shopkeeper is not worse than the case of the ordinary tenant of a dwelling-house. But it is. There are at any rate some new houses being built for tenants of ordinary dwelling-houses, but so far as I know there are few, if any, shops being built anywhere in the land. Consequently, the small shopkeeper has no chance whatever of getting alternative accommodation. I trust that the House appreciates the fact that these people are being called upon to pay increases of rent, not according to what is stipulated in the 1920 Act, namely, 40 per cent., but in some cases twice or three times the amount of rent that they paid before the War. I plead for those tragic cases where people who have built up little businesses are being evicted.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I beg to second the Motion. A short time ago, by the courtesy of the House, I had the honour of introducing a small Bill which had for its object the protection of leaseholders. I have been astonished at the number of letters I have received from, all over the country wishing me success with the Bill, and referring to cases of hardship either of my correspondents or of some persons known to them. This Clause is a belated attempt to do some slight measure of justice to people who in many cases have been very harshly treated. Many Members, perhaps, do not realise the state of terror almost in which many of this class of people live. Many men have been positively ruined because of the conditions under which they are compelled to renew leases as an alternative to eviction. An hon. Member interjected the question a moment or two ago, "What about the co-operative societies?" I challenge the hon. Gentleman to point out to me a single instance where a co-operative society has entered into competition with any tradesman of a given trade and treated him harshly. It is the practice of a co-operative society—as distinct from that of the monopolists and the multiple shops, who dump themselves in the neighbourhood of a competitor and crush him out of existence—to offer a tradesman reasonable terms, to buy his goodwill, to take over his lease, and to offer him the post of manager of the branch. Such a man can earn as manager as much as he earned as a shopkeeper, for many little shopkeepers to-day are in the position that they are practically tied like publicans or managers of public houses. This Amendment is designed particularly to protect that type of person.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Anyone listening to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment would imagine that they had been spending laborious hours in drafting this complicated sentence in order to do justice to a much-abused class of person. As a matter of fact, this Clause is copied out of the Act of 1920 word for word, except that at the end of the Clause in the 1920 Act there was a Sub-section which provided that it should come to an end on 24th June, 1921. Why did hon. Members opposite not put down this Amendment for the Committee stage? For some reason they did not think fit to move it then.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I was not on the Committee.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was there, and was not restrained by his modesty, I am sure, from moving the Clause in Committee. Why it should be considered necessary on the Report stage I cannot imagine, unless it is to get a little more publicity for those who desire to appear as the champions of a particular class. There is really no justification for the Amendment. It was an anomaly in the first instance to put business premises into the Act, which was designed to protect the tenants of dwelling-houses, and not businesses. Business premises were put into the Act for a time. They have been decontrolled for two years, and there is no real evidence of any serious hardship being caused. To go back now to the Clause in the 1920 Act would be a retrograde step.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The defence of the Minister of Health is an astounding one. He says that this is a bad Clause because it was copied from the 1920 Act.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman proceeds to lecture my Friends on the ground that the Clause happens to be a copied Clause. I would put it to him that if, in the wisdom of the then existing Government, this Clause was devised, and we feel that it is necessary to-day, he has certainly no right to complain merely because it happens to be copied. It would be much better for him to point out why the Clause is not necessary. The right hon. Gentleman complains that we did not move the Clause in Committee. No one knows better than he how this Bill was rushed through Committee. There are many Members on the other side who have been in previous Parliaments, and they know perfectly well the time that a Bill of this length occupies in Committee, and that very much smaller Bills often occupy a much longer time. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that there were sitting simultaneously a number of Committees of which my hon. Friends were Members. At all events, I submit two points to the right hon. Gentleman. He says that this Clause is unnecessary, but my hon. Friend has given me two cases. Case 1 was where advantage
was taken by a landlord of the shortage of business premises, due to the absence of building during the War. The landlord takes advantage, and puts a premium of £2,000 on the tenant, who is faced with this situation. He has developed his business, formed a connection, and had given his time and money. Then the landlord comes along and says, "I know perfectly well that you cannot remove from the district. I know perfectly well that you have built up a connection." What right, we ask, has the landlord to take advantage of the situation because the tenant has built up a business? [An HON. MEMBER: "He would still do it if your Clause were put in."] My hon. Friend interrupted the previous speaker, and said he did not believe this Clause was watertight. If it is not watertight, what we are concerned with is with removing the grievance, mere words are a detail. It is not sufficient merely to criticise the wording of the Clause if you wish, or are agreed, that a remedy ought to be found. [An HON. MEMBER: "I voted for it."] That being so, I am quite sure that my hon. Friend will not only vote for the principle, but will urge the Government to remove the anomaly. I put it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that it hardly rests with him merely to twit us about electoral advantages. There are many hon. Members on that side of the House who need not talk in that way, because the difference is that their action has not been limited to trying to get party advantage by moving Amendments in this House. They know perfectly well that they are past-masters of the art of making promises at election times which they never fulfil. It is hardly fitting for them to lecture us on the question of electoral advantage. At all events, I will put it to my right hon. Friend that it was under the late Government that this Clause was inserted, in 1920.

Sir F. BANBURY: A Welsh Prime Minister did it.

Mr. THOMAS: I know, and the only difference is that the Welsh Prime Minister seemed to have been good enough for a large number of English people to get in on his back.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government only thought the Clause good enough for one year.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know that any of these pleasantries have very much to do with this Clause.

Mr. THOMAS: No one could resist the temptation of the interruption of the right hon. Baronet, who, I frankly admit, was never one of the ardent supporters of the late Prime Minister, although the majority of the House certainly were, I content myself, however, by again urging the Minister of Health to observe two things. This Amendment is moved because we still believe that it is unfair to take advantage of the housing shortage to penalise the small business man. We believe that the Clause in the 1920 Act was intended to remove that difficulty. We submit this Clause to-day, with the same object, not being tied to the mere form of words. We shall be content if the Minister of Health and his supporters, who so often talk about being the champions of the small business man, will practise this afternoon what they preach by going into the Division Lobby in support of this Clause.

Mr. GERALD HURST: I happen to have been one of the members of the Select Committee to which my hon. Friend who moved this Clause referred. He spoke about the Report of that Committee, but he did not bring before the House what is, after all, the salient distinction between the condition of the country at that time and its condition now. What influenced us when we were members of that Committee were two facts: first of all, that business was so good that there was tremendous pressure on the accommodation available for business premises. The result of that was that business men who were evicted or dispossessed had nowhere to turn. They could not get alternative accommodation for love or money. The other point was that there was a liability to oppression by unscrupulous landlords, who had tenants absolutely at their mercy. In those circumstances we did advocate the temporary prolongation of the protection which the Act then gave to business premises, which paid rents of £78 a year and under in the provinces and £105 in London. That was a very different thing from advocating the permanent protection which the Mover of this Amendment tells us he is doing, and from suggesting the
protection of business premises at rentals of over £100 a year.

Mr. WALLHEAD: This Clause would only last so long as the principal Act is operative. It is not a permanent thing at all.

Mr. HURST: My contention is that the pressure has quite passed away. Now that we have had bad trade, the liability to oppression on the part of landlords is very much less, and it is much easier to get business premises to-day. The real problem in passing this Bill is quite distinct. What we want in order to increase the accommodations for business tenants and ultimately to bring down the rents of business premises, is more construction. There are two ways of doing that. You can reconstruct existing premises, so as to utilise building sites to greater advantage than they are being utilised at present when leases fall in. What we want to see is the erection of larger buildings, with more offices and accommodation than the buildings contain which we have now. The other way to meet this need is by extending the building sites in the great towns, so as to cover residential portions in the suburbs, which are very often now largely filled with slum property. It would be to the national advantage if those slums were swept away, and buildings erected for business purposes. You can never get this until you pursue two courses of action—reconstruction and the utilisation of fresh building sites. You will not encourage people to put their money into fresh building operations, and nobody will finance new buildings, or go to the trouble of putting up new business premises, unless they are absolutely unfettered by Statute. Therefore, any Clause of this sort will undoubtedly operate to deter those new building operations which everybody desires. Another great disadvantage to this scheme may be that where you want to erect business premises in place of the existing buildings, you may have all the reconstruction held up by reason of one or two small offices which may be at the top of the premises, and which are paying less rentals than the rest, and come within the Rent Restrictions Act. I therefore feel that the real cure for high rents for business premises, and for the shortage of accommodation, lies in free trade in houses.

Mr. PRINGLE: I have been very much interested in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst). It is quite true that he was a Member of the Committee to which reference has been made, and that that Committee made certain recommendations. I have consulted the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I find that the hon. and learned Member was prepared to go further than the Committee. Not only was he in favour of the restrictions applying to houses within the rentals specified in the Bill, but he was in favour of the restriction applying to business premises of all rentals, and he moved an Amendment to that effect. More than that, he did not contemplate the pressure coming to an end, as he now assures us it has, and his Amendment proposed that those restrictions should continue on all business premises until Parliament otherwise determined. My reading of his speech then is, that he argued, at that time, with equal ardour of conviction, on behalf of the oppressed people with a rental of £400, as he now appears to be doubtful of it. His Amendment was as follows:
Provided always that the restriction on the right of possession imposed by Section five shall apply to all business premises of whatever rent until otherwise provided by Parliament." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1920; col. 1948, vol. 130.]
Therefore, it was not simply for the period within the original Act; it was to go on much longer.
That brings me to another point, in which, I think, the Minister of Health has not quite fairly dealt with the House. When the Clause was passed on the Report stage, there was no limitation to its operation. The right hon. Gentleman points triumphantly now to the limitation of its operation up to June, 1921, but that was not in the Bill as it left the House of Commons. The House of Commons passed it on the footing that the restriction on business premises should last as long as the other restrictions. There would have been no break, and no interruption, such as has now occurred, had it not been for an Amendment introduced into another place, to which this assented—

Sir F. BANBURY: That shows their common sense.

Mr. PRINGLE: That commends the other place to the tight hon. Baronet. It
makes us all wonder why he is so reluctant to go there. I do not think the provision which commends itself to the right hon. Baronet, recommends itself to the rest of the House. The question is whether there is a case for the restriction on business premises now. The argument of the hon. and learned Member was that the pressure which existed then, which convinced the Committee, and which so impressed him at that time, when he was going to give protection for ever, until Parliament otherwise determined, no longer exists. It is quite true that in many parts of the country the condition of trade has brought that pressure to an end. If the pressure is at an end, then landlords cannot raise the rents. There is no inducement for them to evict. What is happening is that tenants are giving up the shops, but we wish to legislate for those places where those conditions do not exist. There are still many places where there is keen competition for business premises, and where tenants of business premises are being forced to pay higher rents, with the threat of eviction, and of losing their businesses, and the fruits of their labours. If it can be proved—as I hold it can be proved—that such cases do still prevail on a considerable scale in many parts of the country, that is an absolute case for the new Clause. An hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Bethnal Green informs me—I am sorry he is not in the House at the moment—that in his division in Bethnal Green that is going on at the present time. There are a large number of small cabinet-makers there — many small capitalists—who are suffering.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: What kind of Cabinets do they make?

Mr. PRINGLE: I am not thinking of the kind of Cabinet we have before us to-day. This is a legitimate business. These are small men, who deserve encouragement. They are having their profits filched from them by unscrupulous landlords, but the Government will not step in in their defence. There is a case which only applied to a limited number of people, and it may not be possible to win or lose a bye-election on their votes. They are so few. We know that the Government capitulate when a large class is concerned. In cases like Willesden or Mitcham, it is hands up with them and they are on the knee at
once. But when a comparatively small class, even though it is a deserving class, is suffering from a grievance, then the Government consider that these poor people can be ignored. We ask the House to deal with this question on its merits. We say, if there is a case for these provisions in regard to dwelling houses, there is equally a case for the smaller people engaged in business. It is on that ground that we support the Clause, and I hope we shall have the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, many of whom supported the Clause on the last occasion on the basis that it should continue until the expiration of the original Act, while others supported the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) in his desire to include all business premises for ever. I find there are some still Members of the House. The hon. Member for Southport (Lieut.-Colonel Dalrymple White), for instance, where is he? There is another hon. and gallant Member for Manchester. I do not recollect his Division, but he is absent from his place. There is also a Member of the Government—I think the Parliamentary Secre-

tary to the Board of Trade—who was so impressed by the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side that he went into the Lobby against the Government on that occasion. Then there is the hon. and gallant Member who so efficiently represents the Scottish Board of Health; he was equally ardent on that occasion and wanted to protect business men, not only small but large business men, for ever. Is he going to allow his present responsibilities and emoluments to interfere with the strong convictions which he then entertained? I hope not. I could quote others, but I do not wish to expose them. I have no doubt that those who are not trammelled by official connections will be true to their old convictions and will, as on a previous occasion last week, vote as they voted before, giving their votes solely with a view to the public interest, and with no fear of any of the terrors of the Government Whips. In these circumstances we may look for a favourable verdict from the House.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 224.

Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause on the paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney)—(County Court Judge to have power to create controlled tenancies)—is outside the scope of the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Prolongation of duration of principal Act, 10 and 11 Geo. 5, c. 17.)

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), shall continue in force until the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-five.

Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment on the Bill I select is that in the name of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee).

Mr. MCENTEE: I beg to move, to leave out the word "twenty-five," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty."
I think the House will agree that this Amendment is one of very great substance, and that it will either make or mar the value of the Bill. In considering this question, it is just as well to ask ourselves why houses were first controlled, and in answering that question I think we shall probably find there were a number of reasons which induced the Government of that time to control houses. One of the reasons, which, I think, were operating in the minds of Members in the House of Commons at that time, was that the landlords were at least suspected of desiring to increase rents very materially, and everybody will remember that in certain districts in Scotland and in England we got very near to a condition of riot and when there might have been bloodshed in consequence of threats of landlords to increase rents to a very great extent. There was also the possibility of those tenants who were not in a position to pay large increases of rent being evicted as a consequence, and those who were out of work—and there were many out of work at the time—and those who because of small wages were quite unable to bear any big increase in rent, became more or less noisy, and great numbers of meetings were held in protest against the desire of the landlords to increase rents.
I suggest that all those things were very clearly before the eyes of the Government at that time, and, consequently, they saw at once the necessity, for many reasons, no doubt, to put a limit on the rents that could be charged by landlords for particular kinds of property. If those conditions prevailed at that time, I think the House ought to ask itself whether the conditions have materially altered at the present time, and, if not, is there any real reason to believe that by the date mentioned in the Bill, namely, 1925, there will be any real alteration in the condition prevailing then as compared with now, or as compared with the date when control was first put on? I suggest that the tenants are, probably, in a worse condition now than they were when the rents were first controlled. The number of houses is less than then compared with the population. There is a far greater shortage of houses now, and I think anybody who was at the discussions in the Committee on the Housing Bill will agree that it was mentioned, not only by Members on this side of the House, but by Members on the other side, and, I think I am correct in saying, by the Minister himself, that they did not expect to get many new houses under the new Housing Bill. I do not think that anybody could reasonably argue that by 1925, the date when the first part of the decontrol Section of the Bill comes into operation, there is any reason to believe that the housing problem will be less acute than it was when control was first put into operation.
Therefore, I suggest that it would be a very dangerous thing, indeed, for this House to say that in 1925, quite irrespective of whether there are any houses for the people to go into or not, that the houses in which they are now living will be decontrolled, and that while wages are falling, and probably will continue to fall between now and 1925, rents are going to be suddenly increased by probably 50 or even 100 per cent. I say the House ought very seriously to consider the condition of things that might arise in consequence of the action the Government ask us to take to-day. What will be the feelings of hundreds of thousands of workers whose wages are continually falling, who are continually being told that the cost of living is going
down, and, consequently, that they must accept reduced rates of wages, and when decontrol takes place on a given day, when it is generally admitted by all sections of the House that the condition of the housing problem will be very little, if at all, better than at the present time, or at the time control was first put on rents—what, I ask, will be the feelings of people at that time? I say, in all probability, a state of things will arise in which the Government of the time may have to use force to repress violence. It appears to be a very serious problem indeed. It must be remembered that when control was first established, it was influenced more by the riots, or threatened riots, and the rent strikes that took place on the Clyde and in other districts. Those things were probably more responsible than anything else for bringing about control. Are we going to risk that state of things again in the near future? It would be a far more reasonable attitude of mind to ask, when can we reasonably hope, by the operation of the Housing Bill that will soon be coming into force, that we shall have a reasonable sufficiency of houses, though perhaps not a full sufficiency, that will enable tenants to have some chance to get another house, in the event of the landlord putting up, to any large extent, the rent of the house in which the tenant is now living? I do not think the Minister would argue that we could reasonably hope for that condition a things in 1925. I think I am right in saying that he on more than one occasion said that he did not think that state of things would exist in 1925, but I understand his argument to be. "We will partly decontrol houses in 1925, and will take off the remaining control in 1930." I do suggest it is reasonable to believe that it will take at least until 1930 before we have anything like the number of houses that will be required to meet the demands that we have at the present time. Everybody admits that, including the Minister himself.
8.0 P.M.
If that be so, would it not be far safer and far more in the interest, not only of the tenant, but of the landlord, to say that we believe that there is a reasonable chance of a sufficient number of houses in 1930, and therefore we will decontrol the houses in 1930, because there will be some alternative accommodation for the tenants, who may have to go out of their present houses, and there may be some
reasonable hope of getting other houses? I have heard it argued from the other side that it is to give confidence to the people who will build houses. You want to let them know some definite period at which they may expect houses to be decontrolled, so that we will get back as near to what we call normal conditions in a reasonable number of years. In consequence of that confidence we can (they will say) safely decontrol the houses, and at the same time know that building will be going on to a very much greater extent than at present. Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously argue that the amount of decontrol in this Bill is going to give confidence to anybody to build houses? I suggest it will not. I suggest that anybody who has this in mind will say—I would myself if I were building houses, and I think that most other people whatever their views politically may be would say the same—that if they are going into a speculation such as this of building houses they will argue along the same lines, assuming that they have the common knowledge of what they are undertaking to do. In that case most people will say, "What hope is there that the Government will decontrol houses in 1925?"
They told us before they were going to decontrol. Then they changed their minds and their policy. They told us quite a number of things in this matter, so that nobody knew what they were going to do. Ultimately they gave a date at which they were going to decontrol. Then they changed their policy again. What hope have we that another by-election may not make them change their minds again? After all, what reasonable hope have we that in 1925 there will be a sufficient number of houses for the people to live in? Is the position, too, safe from the landlords' point of view? To say that "irrespective of the conditions of the housing problem, irrespective of whether there are houses for the people to live in or not, we will, on a certain day in 1925, increase your rents just as much as we like"—of course, with certain reservations stated in the second part of the Act. It is a condition of things about which no landlord would feel satisfied. No thoughtful landlord, reasonably regarding the possibilities of the situation, and of getting his rent in
certain districts, would look to that state of things with any confidence. I had a conversation on Friday last with two landlords—at least, one of them is a house and estate agent— and both of them told me, though they do not belong to my political party—they belong to the one to which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health belongs—they told me that it was their firm conviction that this Act, which is being brought in supposedly in the interest of the landlord, would not be approved by the great bulk of landlords and rent collectors over the country. The landlords are getting their rents now. They can remember a condition of things, before control came in, when they went to collect their rents on a certain day in the week, and found they were lucky if they got 75 per cent. of the rents. The same general condition applied to other districts where the collectors did not even get 50 per cent. of their rents on a particular day; but because of the operation of this Act, and because of other features, they are to-day getting their rents in nearly every case in full.
What will be the condition of things when this Act comes to an end in 1925? The housing shortage will be as great as, perhaps, if not greater than, now; the whole state of the country will be disturbed. Nobody can possibly have any confidence in the Government, or in Parliament, that they are going on a certain date to be brought completely under another condition of things without another very great change in legislation in this matter? With no alternative accommodation for the tenants, and the general state of things at least equally as bad as they are to-day, and probably much worse than they were when the first Bill controlling houses in the country was brought in, where will we be? 1930, from every point of view, is a reasonable time when we may expect that the housing shortage will be to a large extent met, will be, at any rate, met to the extent that we can avoid the possibility of bloodshed, riot, and trouble, as we only did a few years ago. One must at least hope that some better accommodation for the tenants than they have and the houses they are now living in will be provided. It is a date that, speaking generally, I think most people will admit, whatever their politics may be, is a reasonable date
for expecting something like normal conditions again in housing.
It appears to me to be simply playing with a serious problem to suggest that in 1925 the conditions will be so materially altered that we will be able to decontrol the houses, or the great bulk, and to allow what is called supply and demand to have its usual effect. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the date 1925 out, and give some stability or hope of stability to the people who build houses, and, as well, hope and stability to those who live in the houses, and some reasonable hope that normal conditions will have arrived, or something like them, before at all events he decontrols houses, or he may find himself compelled, as he is now, and as the Government were some time back, to again inaugurate control. That sort of thing would not do good. It will not be good for the tenant nor for the landlord, and it will be exceedingly bad for those who, as it is hoped they will do, build houses.

Mr. OLIVER: I beg to second the Amendment.
We have heard the Minister state that it is necessary we should have more houses, and in order to have them it is necessary to get rid of these restrictions. When the Minister made that statement he gave us no evidence whatever which led him to that conclusion. I myself cannot understand the theory that it is necessary to decontrol old property that we may expedite the erection of new. The provisions of this Bill, I believe, exclude new property from its operation, and to argue that 1925 will be a better date to the great majority of investors in new houses than 1930 is, in my judgment, to suggest that there will be a greater number of houses erected by 1925 than there is likely to be in 1930. To me the arrangement is a most peculiar one, and the reasoning of the Minister equally peculiar. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that this industry of house building is one of the industries in which it is necessary that confidence should prevail. In the Housing Bill it is supposed that in 1925 100,000 will have been erected. In 1919 the Minister of Health stated that there was required in this country something like 500,000 houses. Since that time
215,000 have been erected; that is in four years. Look at the number of houses that must be required to make up the normal leeway in the four years since the War.
In Derby well before the War there was a genuine shortage of houses to the extent that it was necessary to have a Local Government Board inquiry. After that inquiry reported, in 1914, something over 100 houses were ordered to be put up at once. Derby was only similar to many other towns. Since that time, the War and other things have added to the difficulties and complexities, and in face of this the Minister comes forward and says that in a couple of years he proposes to decontrol housing while at the same time saying that the principal requirement of this industry is confidence. I do not believe there can be any confidence in this industry when we see the deplorable position of housing in this country to-day. I think it is necessary to fix a date which is reasonable in view of present-day circumstances, and not to fix it in 1925 when, on the Minister's own statement, there is not the remotest possibility that the houses will be provided. That state of things in the industry is not likely to attract investors if it is essential that investors should be attracted for the purpose of securing what is aimed at.

Mr. HARRIS: This is really, if I may say so, the key to the Bill. I refer to the question of the date, which is the foundation of this Bill. On the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out there were many good features in this Bill, but that two years was totally inadequate for the purpose of securing what we wanted. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health hopes that his Government will be in office in two years' time, and also, perhaps, thinks that he will still then be a Member of the same Government, and will be in office. Does he look forward with any relish to this whole question being reopened in two years' time? Can he imagine himself still having to face the responsibility of some similar Bill extending the time, for the third or fourth time, the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Act? I think that is a prospect that he will not like to face the House with, especially in view of the fact
that he has spent so many, many days on these various Bills, and he might be inclined in his own mind to take advantage of that fact, for would it not be wiser to face the fact that as every housing expert knows, it will be quite impossible in two years' time to make up that housing shortage that makes legislation of this kind necessary.
When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Housing Bill which is now an Act, he was very careful to say to the House that he did not for a moment suggest that that Bill was going to solve the housing problem. On the contrary, he only put it forward as an instalment. That being so, I think it is unreasonable that in two years' time we should have to face this problem which will be very much then as it is to-day, and that the Government themselves, the Government then in office, will have to face similar legislation and again come forward and ask for a reinstatement of these provisions. Therefore, I say that it would be wise to come forward and to put in a more reasonable date than 1925. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in his Housing Act, which was hurried through Parliament, he did extend the date for the completion of houses from early in 1925 to early in 1926, because it was urged, even on his own side, that his scheme would not be completed. That being so, it is all the more unsatisfactory to put this Bill in force for so short a period. I think he is conscious of it, because in the latter part of the Bill he put forward proposals for Committees which have caused great consternation among some of the absent Members, who usually sit behind him. They are so concerned that they have taken the unusual course of putting Amendments down to defeat these Clauses, because they suggest that they will be setting up something like a rent court. Personally, I am rather attracted by some of the proposals in the latter part of the Bill. A good many of my hon. Friends feel that if the proposals of this Bill were to be continued for a considerable period we should not be inclined to vote against these Clauses and risk putting the Government in a minority.
We are anxious to give stability to the tenants, instead of them always having the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, and being uncertain whether their
rent is going to be raised or whether the Rent Restrictions Act is going to come to an end. That is the feeling which is causing so much unrest. I would remind the Minister of Health that stability is the very foundation of Conservatism, and to have the danger of a renewal every couple of years of legislation of this kind must be a serious cause of unrest, and would undermine the authority of those constitutional forces to which the right hon. Gentleman is so much attached. For these reasons, I hope he will reconsider the period fixed in the Bill so as to enable this Measure to continue for a reasonable time, and thus save the House of Commons having to go through this business of reconsidering this Measure every two or three years.

Mr. MUIR: The Minister of Health during the Committee stage positively assured us that it was necessary that in this Bill we should have a fixed period. During these discussions we have criticised private enterprise in all industries very severely, but we have never criticised it so strongly as the Minister has done or regarded builders as being so stupid as to believe that in 1925 there is going to be decontrol. This Bill is proceeding on the assumption that there is going to be decontrol in 1925, but even if it were true the fixing of a date is not going to have any effect in encouraging the builders. The Minister stated that while it may be true that many working-class houses will not be built other houses of a larger type will be built, and that is going to allow people who are living in insufficient housing accommodation to move into the larger premises, and so release those who are living in still smaller houses to move up. This filters down to the working classes having to wait until smaller houses are built. There may be something in this argument, but there is not a great deal. This kind of thing is not going to supply a great deal of accommodation for the working classes by 1925. May I point out that there is no great scarcity of houses of the larger type? It is not a question of lack of accommodation in those cases, but it is a question of the rent being already too high. More houses added will certainly created competition, but if the landlord is in as strong a position as he is to-day he will not consider the
interests of the working-class tenants in the end.
Even if it were true that the building of larger houses is going to provide in the end more housing accommodation for the working-class tenants, it is argued by the Government's own supporters and the Minister that there is no encouragement to builders to-day to provide working-class houses, and it is admitted by everybody that they will not build working-class houses at rents which the working-class tenants can afford to pay. If that is so there can be no objection, from the point of view of encouraging private enterprise to extending the date to 1930, thus giving the protection to working-class tenants which the period of 1925 is going to deprive them of. It is also quite true, as the Minister of Health has argued, that from the passing of the Act decontrol is going to commence, and that by 1925 a large number of houses will already have been decontrolled. It is not true, however, that the majority of working-class houses are going to be decontrolled by 1925, because that would presuppose a great migration of the people from one part of the city to another, and probably wholesale evictions. By 1925 the majority of the houses will remain controlled, but in 1925, or even earlier, if a Resolution is passed by this House and another place, control may continue.
There is nobody even on the Government side of the House who believes that it would be possible to decontrol with safety to the tenants in 1925 in so far as additional housing accommodation will make it safe by allowing competition amongst landlords to let their premises while rents are kept down, accordingly. There is no one believes that that can be done by 1925. It means that you are going to have a recurrence of the conditions which existed during the War period, and there is going to be trouble in every part of the country. It is not a question of threatening the House, and it is merely a statement of the facts. Those who come from working-class constituencies, and who have lived under working-class conditions, know that they are so bad that any attempt to decontrol rents and to allow landlords to force them up is going to create a condition of unrest which will be a very serious danger.
There is no question of anyone requiring to stir up strife, because there will be plenty of people willing and ready to do that. Where there is discontent there is always great scope for the agitator, but if you remove the cause then there is no room for the agitator. The tenants will combine and form tenants' defence associations and other organisations, and the mere prospect of decontrol in 1925 will organise the tenants to such an extent that they will be able to resist any attempt at decontrol in 1925. If that date for decontrol is insisted upon, you will have rents strikes as you had before, and you will have the agitation going on, defence committees formed, and rent strikes occurring in every part of the country. We are no more desirous of that than the Government are. It is true, as a previous speaker said, that the very foundation of Conservatism is stability. I have pointed out that the best ground for the agitator is instability and insecurity. We do not want to feed on that. We want to see order brought about; we do not want to live on Red strikes and Red agitation.
Some hon. Members opposite may think that Labour Members are greatly concerned to see the Red agitation going on, and to see bad housing conditions continue, because they will have something to work on. That is a very much mistaken idea. No one would be better pleased than the Labour Members of this House to see this rent question swept completely out of the way. It is taking up our time and causing us to neglect things we are more concerned with. After all, the conditions of labour, the existing wage system and rent questions are not the matters with which we are concerned chiefly. They are incidentals merely, but we are compelled to deal with them. They add fuel to the fire throughout the country. We want to get rid of them; we want to get on with bigger things. The Government do not want this continual agitation over rent and housing, either. They want to get on with something else. We are suggesting that if they will give security until 1930, the security of control, they will then have at their disposal all that period of time, and if they will give us some guarantee of having sufficient houses built, they will be free from the discontent attendant on the rents question up to that period, and they will be free to get on with topics
much more important. No one would be better pleased than we to have some sense of security, some freedom from the continual pressure from our constituencies on rent questions. Believe me, we do not want our time taken up with matters of that kind. It is as much to our interest as it is to the interest of the Government to have them cleared out of the way, so that we can get on with those bigger questions in which we are all more concerned. I hope, therefore, the Minister will seriously consider accepting this Amendment to extend the period of control until 1930.

Mr. SHINWELL: Since I have had an opportunity of making myself familiar with the right hon. Gentleman's speeches in Committee on this particular matter, I can anticipate what he is likely to say when replying on this Debate. As I understand it, he objected to the year 1930 being included in the Bill, because he desired to make this delicate operation of decontrol a very gradual one. He was afraid that if decontrol took place suddenly it might result in considerable confusion and have the effect at the same time of preventing building speculators from engaging in building operations. I want to submit, in reply to that argument, that precisely the same effect is likely to result from the inclusion of the year 1925 in the Bill. What will happen? Simply this. In the first place, the tenants will be in a state of suspense. They have no security. It has been argued in Committee that under Part II of the Bill they have certain privileges which will protect them to a considerable degree. These privileges consist largely of appeals to the Court, and so far as I can ascertain from my reading of the Bill there will be constant litigation proceeding after 1925 on this question of decontrol. If there is one thing we desire to avoid, it is the continuance of unnecessary litigation on this question of rent.
Everyone knows that litigation is costly. I have had experience of it myself, for in a case to which I referred in a previous discussion, I was mulcted in a charge of £29 10s. for Court expenses in merely defending myself against a landlord who desired to make me pay more rent than I thought I was legally entitled to pay. I do not suppose any hon. Member of this House expects a working-class
tenant to stand up to a financial difficulty of that kind. It is true that I lost my case, as an hon. Member opposite interjects, but may I be permitted to remind the House that on the principle which I contested in the Court, and which the learned Judge decided against me, the Court of Session of Edinburgh ultimately upheld my point of view, and the House of Lords confirmed the decision of the Court of Session. But I did not get my £29 10s. back. Your working-class tenant has hardly sufficient with which to pay his rent without proceeding to defend himself in a Court of law, which he well knows will involve him in expenditure he cannot afford to incur.
That is the whole crux of the question—that the only manner in which you can deal with decontrol after 1925, with the exception of certain cases such as new buildings, constructed from now onwards, is by means of litigation, or, at all events, by reference to a Court of law. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree there is no desire, except, perhaps, on the part of the legal profession, to proceed any further with litigation on questions of this kind. Apart from the suspense of mind, which tenants find themselves thrust into, there is the suspense of the landlord. I know hon. Members on the other side are very anxious to protect the landlord, and, possibly, with some justification from their standpoint, but there is no protection to the landlord here such as they desire to give them. Again, the question of reference to the Court of law comes in, and the landlord does not know whether the Court will decide in his favour after 1925. So there is no protection for the landlord, no protection for the tenant, there is a complete sense of insecurity, there is suspense all round, and, in the meantime, are we legislating for what we believe will lead to stability of mind of both landlord and tenant in this country. I think the ostensible wish of the Minister is, in some measure, to stimulate house building in the country.
Let us get down to hard facts and try to ascertain how far any of the provisions of this Bill are likely to stimulate house building in any degree. I join issue at once with the Minister and his friends on this question. I cannot see how building speculators, and particularly those who cater for working-class tenants,
are likely to engage in house-building operations in face of the steady diminution in the wages of working-class tenants, which, obviously, deprives them of the privilege of paying the rents which will be demanded of them; and in face—and this is a very formidable point, which I think will receive the respect of the other side—of the continual high prices that are being charged for building materials. This, perhaps, if I may digress for a moment, is the most formidable obstacle of all. If the minds of building speculators in the country could be relieved as regards the prices of building materials, it would, probably, have more effect on the building of houses than any other thing that could be done. The Minister has not yet faced that difficulty, except by the appointment of a Committee, about which we know little or nothing, and which does not appear to be doing anything of moment. That is probably because it lacks the power, but, at all events, the fact is, as I say, that very little is being done, whatever may be being attempted.
For these reasons, cogent as I think they are, there is a substantial case for continuing control until a later period. The question may be asked of hon. Members on this side, and I admit that it is a very pointed question, whether, assuming control to be continued until 1930, we would agree to a complete lopping off of control at that time. That question has to be faced, and, speaking from my own personal standpoint, I would agree to the ending of control in 1930, because I believe that by that time we shall have in this country a sufficient supply of houses for the working classes, if the Government are prepared to apply the powers they possess in other directions so far as the price of building material is concerned. That is a matter for themselves. Personally, I say at once, I dislike control. Control is an artificial product, justified, perhaps, only by war circumstances and by the abnormal circumstances which have arisen since the War; but control under the existing capitalist system is no more justifiable in the case of rent than in the case of food. I dislike it entirely, and would much prefer to allow the ordinary economic law of supply and demand to operate, provided that you abolish the restrictions which apply to building
materials, to the raw material of housing, and to questions of wages and things of that sort. But, if you will not legislate for one thing, obviously you have to legislate for another. I believe, however, that, if you make no attempt to bring about a partial measure of decontrol in the manner I have indicated, and as is desired by hon. Members on the other side, if you continue control until 1930 and then put an end to it completely, you will have solved the question in a thorough manner. If you are not prepared to do that, I submit that all your efforts will be in vain. I do not know how far the Government are susceptible to by-elections. It has been argued from this side, probably with some measure of justice, that they have been susceptible to recent by-elections. I think it is a very bad thing that a Government should allow itself to be swayed by the result of a by-election, and if we are to have—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member is getting rather far from the subject before the House.

Mr. SHINWELL: I bow to your ruling. I was about to submit that it is very serious and awkward, not to say unconstitutional, that legislation should be influenced by considerations of that kind. I am anxious to avoid that, and, therefore, would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to allow his mind to be influenced by the arguments which have been submitted by hon. Members on his own side in the Committee, but to face this matter boldly. He has earned a reputation for boldness during the last day or two, to say nothing of ability. Let him earn that reputation now. Probably no Member of the House is more able to earn and sustain a reputation of that kind. I ask him to apply boldness in a constructive fashion to this problem. If you only attempt to deal with it in a halfhearted fashion, the problem will remain, and in 1925 you will be faced with precisely the same condition of things with which we are faced to-day.

Sir K. WOOD: We have heard a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell), and he has made some striking admissions, which some of us, perhaps, will remember on a future occasion. I am very glad, in the first place, to note that the hon.
Member, so far as he himself is concerned, is not in favour of the system of control, either in connection with building of with, as I undersand, any other matter. That is a very interesting observation. The point, however, which specially strikes me in his speech, and in regard to which I think we shall want some little further explanation, is why he fixes on the year 1930, any more than, say, 1929 or 1931. I wish to make my own position perfectly clear. I am quite content to accept the year which has been put forward by the Minister, namely, 1925, but I accept it with, at any rate, this reservation, as I think almost every Member of the House must do, that we shall again have to consider in 1925 exactly what the housing position is, and whether the supply of houses then justifies the putting into operation of Part II of this Bill. If the year 1926 had been selected by the Minister, exactly the same objections could be advanced against it as have been advanced against 1925. The utmost that can be said for the year 1925 is that it does give a date from which gradual decontrol can begin, but it must obviously be dependent upon whether there is a sufficient supply of houses, at any rate to meet the paramount needs, as I believe, of a very large number of the people of this country. As to why 1930 should be chosen, we have heard no argument from the hon. Member opposite. He also made this observation, that, when 1930 came, he was prepared to allow decontrol to disappear; but I noticed that, as I expected, knowing him as an able debater in this House, he made a very important qualification. Of course, directly we get to 1930, the same considerations will arise, and he will be amply safeguarded by the statement he has made in this House to-night.

Mr. SHINWELL: If the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting him, I pointed out, or, at any rate, attempted to point out—perhaps I did not do so clearly—that the Government would be compelled to do other things.

Sir K. WOOD: Certainly. The hon. Member said that his fixing of the year 1930 was dependent upon whether the Government put into force certain powers which he thinks they ought to put into force. I can well understand the year 1930 arising—and I hope the hon. Mem-
ber will still be here—when he would say, "Oh, but the Government have not done this, they have not done that, they have not put into operation all these things which I think they ought to have done." When 1930 comes, if decontrol cannot be put into operation we must again face the question of further control. In my judgment, it is largely dependent on the housing situation in 1925 as to whether we can continue to go on with any question of gradual decontrol, but I think very ample provisions have been made—they may perhaps be improved in the course of this stage of the Bill—by which gradual decontrol can take place. Hon. Members opposite will agree that that is a far better proposal than the suggestion of the Onslow Committee, by which decontrol should take place in accordance with various classes of houses in proportion to their rent and matters of that kind. At any rate, there is some scheme by which we can get back to that position which the hon. Member opposite desires, namely, absolutely decontrol of all houses in the country.
I do not think for a moment it can be said there is no security in the future for tenants who may be subject to applications by their landlord for dispossession. I have very carefully studied what has taken place in the Committee, and certainly most of the concessions which have been made are in favour of the tenant and also against any immediate decontrol or dispossession of any one of them. We shall never get back to the period of decontrol which the hon. Member desires until we are able to assure people who have previously invested money in the building industry that it is likely at an early date that there will be absolute decontrol. The position of the private builder is not so much dependent upon the desires and acts of the ordinary builder. It is really dependent on the people who are prepared to lend him money, and the private builders in the past were really put in motion, in the matter of finance, by a very large number of people who at present are refusing to put their money for investment in house building. It is not so much what is the position of the building trade, it is really what is the state of mind of the people who have hitherto invested their money in house building. Very large numbers of people who are of the same political thought and opinion as hon. Members
opposite have in days gone by invested very large sums in house building. It is a very striking feature of the attitude of mind, we will say, of the average workman that in days gone by he was prepared to invest his money either in a mortgage on a house or in having a house constructed for himself. To-day they have not that condition of mind at all. All that source of finance, so far as the ordinary private builder is concerned, has dried up. Why has it dried up?
The hon. Member opposite rather put upon one side the explanation that I desire to offer of the attitude of mind of a very large number of people with regard to the present position. He said that because rent restriction did not apply to new house building people would continue to go on investing and erecting houses, but the facts are that people do not and will not to-day invest their money in house building because—and it is very difficult to convince them to the contrary—they think that somehow or other there is a prejudice against that form of investment and they are liable at any time through some Act in Parliament to have their security jeopardised. That may be a quite unreasonable frame of mind, but there it is, and if you go to any surveyor or any professional man and say, "Why is it that people are refusing to invest in house property, and how is it that they take up that attitude when restrictions do not apply to new house building?" he will tell you exactly the same as I am stating. Therefore, I agree with the Government that it is most essential to put some scheme before the country by which gradual decontrol will take place. If you alter the date to 1926, or if you like to 1930, you will undoubtedly confirm that impression amongst vast numbers of people. I support the year 1925 simply for the reasons I have stated. I hope by that time there will be sufficient houses to justify gradual decontrol. At any rate it is well, perhaps, to fix that date and await the event. I certainly would not, so far as any vote of mine was concerned, if 1925 arrives and the housing position is by no means met, take any step to put decontrol into immediate operation. But the same argument exactly applies to 1926 or 1927 or 1930. There is no magic in any of these figures. All I think you can do is to put forward a reasonable present-
ment of the position as it appears at the moment and to aim at the figure 1925 in the hope that gradual decontrol will then take place. If there are not sufficient houses by that time, I believe there will be sufficient pressure in the country to operate on every Member of Parliament to see that Part II of the Bill is not put into operation. I think hon. Members opposite will be making a very great mistake and will be undoubtedly prejudicing the future of house building, which after all is dependent on people putting their money into housing enterprise, if they seek to postpone this figure and put it at 1930, as to which we may direct every objection which has been taken against the year 1925.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The hon. Member who has just sat down has admitted the grave element of uncertainty which attaches to the date that is inserted in the Bill. It appears to me one of the most glaring defects of the Bill as it has emerged from Committee that we should have had a hard-and-fast date fixed. We are all agreed that decontrol could not possibly come in sooner, much as we should all desire to see it. It is dependent upon circumstances which will have to be clearly defined as at the date when decontrol takes effect. But I put it to the Government that, in fixing this date, they must be aware of the very serious risks which they are taking. I put it to the Under-Secretary for Health whether he is prepared to say he is satisfied that, at the end of this period, there will be sufficient houses provided for Scotland to meet the existing needs. We have had it recently in a Report of the Board of Health that there is a shortage of 100,000 houses in Scotland to be made up—the figure which was put forward by local authorities under the original Addison scheme. I put it to him whether it is not clear to all who have studied the problem, that there is no likelihood, to say the least, of an adequate number of houses being built before the period which is fixed in the Bill. It may be said we are to have another period of modified control to follow, but this modified period of control takes us into an entirely different region. It is not the character of control which has to be provided to secure the necessary protection for those who may find it impossible to secure
adequate housing accommodation. What will happen is that you are going to throw all questions with regard to tenants securing occupation of premises into the Law Courts. You are going to create a system in which the obligation will be placed on every tenant, on every man or woman who desires to secure occupation of a house, to bear the burden and expense of legal proceedings in order to establish their claim. Is it a right and fair thing to regard that modified control as a system which ought to be recommended or adopted? Under that system you are creating difficulties which are insuperable, and you are putting an unfair strain upon the County Court Judges and Sheriffs, and all those who will have to deal with this matter, which it will be an impossibility for them, with all good will, to discharge.
Under these circumstances, there is one course which is open to the Government, whiich was suggested to them in Committee, and which we might now consider. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) that the same difficulty attaches more or less to other dates, in that you are in an element of doubt depending upon contingencies as to whether that particular date will exactly fit the situation. Before 1925 in no circumstances can there possibly be sufficient houses, and decontrol, and when that date arrives, and the Government have again to review the situation, might it not be advisable for them to adopt a method with regard to the termination of control which would leave it to the Houses of Parliament by Resolution to determine whether or not that date should be extended after the end of 1925. That principle is adopted in Part II of the Bill. I put down an Amendment to that effect in Committee, but it was not fully considered. The Amendment has not been put on the Paper again, but a general discussion has been allowed on the question of date.
If the Government have set their faces against extending the period of control in the Bill, would they be prepared to accept a condition under which, at the end of 1925, if the Board of Health for Scotland or the Minister of Health here are not satisfied that the houses have been built in sufficient numbers, they might, by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament,
extend the date until such time as might be necessary. They have allowed that elasticity in Part II, and why should not the same elasticity be allowed in regard to Part I of the Bill. My suggestion is put forward in all good faith, realising the difficulties with which the situation is surrounded, and with a single desire to see that we get decontrol as soon as possible, but that we should not have to go through all the whole stages of another Act of Parliament, but we might, if Parliament so desired, by Resolution extend the date when the time arrives.

9.0 P.M.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY for HEALTH for SCOTLAND (Captain Elliot): This is a matter on which it is rather difficult to speak. One is apt to be led away into a general discussion of the Bill, and into a Second Reading discussion of allied Bills. We have had discussions on the Housing Bill, and other Bills, and one might be led into a general discussion embracing the whole of the points raised on these allied Bills. The difficulty of the problem can be realised when one considers the many suggestions made for dealing with the admittedly difficult and intricate situation which at present confronts us. We have had a remarkably interesting assurance from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) that he is opposed to all forms of housing control, and he would sweep them away as soon as it may be done.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Hear, hear.

Captain ELLIOT: I am not surprised to hear that sentiment from the hon. and gallant Member, because he is one of those who is opposed to almost any form of Government, or, at any rate, he is of opinion that the less one has of it the better. That is rather a peculiar attitude to be adopted by one who holds a high position in a party which is hoping to come to power. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) said that after the period of 1925 he would be prepared to consider the matter again, and he suggested that the Government would need, to consider very seriously whether control should be extended or not. He has himself put down Amendments for limiting the operation of a portion of the Bill which was designed actually to continue the
control. We have also the somewhat extraordinary suggestion of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) that control should come to an end definitely and completely in 1925, but should be continued if Resolutions were passed by both Houses of Parliament. That seems to me to be entrusting to the House of Lords a confidence which one is surprised to find on the other side of the House, because, if the other place did not pass a Resolution in favour of the continuance of control, the hon. Member is willing that it should cease in 1925 without any further protection to the tenant.
These suggestions show the great intricacy of the problem. The two suggestions which have been brought forward have been the general suggestion that decontrol should not come at all at any period which we can see in front of us, and the further suggestion, which has only been sketchily brought forward, that some other machinery should be adopted for dealing with the position. Hon. Members opposite generally incline to the opinion that control should not come to an end, or that it is not possible to see a situation arising in which we can decontrol houses, because they say there is no possibility of an adequate number of houses being provided so as to enable decontrol to come to an end. That is exactly the problem with which we find ourselves confronted. Control is leading us in a state in which the housing shortage is not being removed but is becoming more acute. It is not a question merely of the cost of building a number of houses and then decontrolling them, because by hypothesis they suggest that only by public bodies can a supply of houses be produced. But they never suggest that public bodies will produce a number of empty houses, which is the only way in which control would really come with perfect safety. So that you would have not merely a house for every family but that you would have a surplus of empty houses competing for tenants. It is not supposed that municipalities would produce a situation of that kind. The two things are intimately related. It is not possible to separate entirely the question of the provision of houses from the question of the decontrol of houses, because while you have Government control you have a shortage. Government control is the distribution
of a shortage, sharing it among a number of persons. You do not get a surplus produced under Government control.

Mr. MUIR: It has not been insisted on from this side that the municipalities are going to build all the houses. What we were claiming was, as the Government freely admits, that private enterprise does not build houses suitable for the working-class tenant. Nobody suggests that the municipalities are going to build a surplus, but it is not correct to say that the municipalities are not going to build houses, as the Parliamentary Secretary suggests.

Captain ELLIOT: It seems to me that there is a certain confusion in the matter. The hon. Member says that, in his opinion, the municipalities never could produce a surplus of houses.

Mr. MUIR: I say that we do not claim that they would build a surplus, but it is conceivable that they would display more foresight than the speculative builder and build in advance of population, which would leave a certain surplus. I did not say definitely that they would not.

Captain ELLIOT: The fact that they have not claimed such a thing must be taken as tantamount to a general admission that they will not. But let us the general position. If it is said on the other side of the House that you can, by some machinery or other, produce a surplus of houses while the present control lasts, then we definitely join issue. That is the real reason why we are bringing in this legislation. This Bill continues the period of control up to 1925. It then produces a shock-absorber period during which we pass from the period of control to the period of decontrol. An early date of termination of the present control is essential. After that we must have a period of shading down in passing from the present control to full decontrol. You must have an intermediate stage. We say, let us pass as rapidly as we can to the intervening period, because it is only by doing that that you will get the increasing supply of houses which are necessary for the people. Hon. Members on the other side argue that you can retain rigid control up to a certain point, which they take at 1930, 1940, or some other date, and then suddenly bring down the guillotine and pass
to complete decontrol. In these circumstances you will not produce a surplus of houses, in which you will find houses competing for tenants and not tenants competing for houses.
I am sorry that we have been led into a Second Reading discussion of the Measure because it is to some extent the kernel of the Bill. The kernel of the Bill is to bring to an end complete control, followed by a period of modified control. Members on all sides of the House agree that the period of complete control has to come to an end some time or other. Some Members agree with and some disagree with the period of modified control, but the position supported by Members on this side of the House allows for a period of modified control in the period intervening between complete control and complete decontrol. That is a position from which it is not possible at this stage to depart, and therefore we shall ask the House to support the Government in its present contention, not because we think that there is any magic about the figures 1925 or 1930, but because we do conceive that the system of gradual tapering-off of control is a good one, and we think that 1925 is a much better date for beginning it than 1930, if we are to pass, as we all hope to pass, to a period in which, as an hon. Member has said, free trade in houses will again become possible.

Captain W. BENN: I listened with close attention to the Minister's speech, but I have not been able to understand what he is driving at. He has not gone near answering any of the questions put from this side. He speaks of some buffer period. If his argument is right, if it is true that you will not get houses built until you cease control, and that when you do cease control you will get houses built, then why not decontrol at once? Why wait two years for these blessings? Why not start at once this mysterious process which will accelerate house building, and produce a surplus, so that we may have ten houses for one tenant instead of ten tenants for one house? The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been a Member of the Government since about Christmas. I think that he commenced earlier in the year on the Government bench. Since then he has supported two policies. He used to support the policy of the Government, which was that you could not decontrol unless you were in
sight of sufficient houses. He remembers that period, of course. I remember the time when the Minister of Health, whose representative he was in Scotland, said that.

Captain ELLIOT: On a point of Order. I hope, as a Scottish Member, that my hon. and gallant Friend will not repeat that.

Captain BENN: I was thinking of a discussion upstairs in the Scottish Committee, with an English Minister, because the Scottish Minister was engaged on Scottish Estimates downstairs. The hon. and gallant Member was not in disagreement with the policy of the Government in February or March of this year, because, if he had been, he would have resigned.

Mr. PRINGLE: Of course. They all do.

Captain BENN: But then the policy of the Government was not in accord with the policy so lucidly and persuasively explained by the Minister this evening. The Minister, speaking as an authority at that time, said:
There is no doubt that the housing shortage is grave in practically every populous centre throughout Great Britain. This housing shortage can only be met by a constructive Housing Act.
That was then the policy of the Government. Now the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that the housing shortage can be met only by decontrol and not by a constructive Housing Act. So we have two policies. For the time being it suits the Government to fix 1925 as the period. But when 1925 arrives they will be driven to continue this Act. I prophesy that in 1925 this Government, if it exists and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is holding responsible office then, will come forward and propose that the period of control shall be prolonged. The reason is very simple. There is not the least prospect that in 1925 there will be a surplus of houses or even anything like sufficient houses to meet the present needs. The Government have the proposal of this Bill, which has merits but many demerits, but behind it all is their grave deficiency in their other proposal. There is no prospect of the shortage being met by the construction of houses, and, so long as that is so, there
is no justice and no expediency in control not terminating at a later date.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I want to take up one or two points of the last speaker, because, as usual with the party to which he belongs—for which I have the highest respect—he tries to get the Government on the horns of a pure dilemma, and he tries to argue on one specific point only. He asks whether the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Scottish Board of Health suggests that housing can be met by constructive processes or by decontrol. He suggests that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has said that at one time it could be met only in the one way, and that at another time he said it could be met only by decontrol. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, with his varied experiences and interests, has not had time to be a practical housing reformer, but every practical housing reformer knows that the housing question is so complex that there are innumerable principles and methods entering into it. Decontrol, on the one hand, is essential to encourage the supply of money for the industry, in order to produce houses, and, on the other hand, constructive processes are equally necessary.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is getting rather far away from the Amendment under discussion.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I admit it, but I was anxious to meet the points of the hon. and gallant Member opposite. The question is whether you can get houses with decontrol in 1925, as proposed in the Bill, or with decontrol in 1930, as proposed in the Amendment. It is necessary to say quite clearly that in this question of decontrol there are two principles that the House has to meet. On the one hand, you have to meet the fact that decontrol will produce houses, and that therefore the sooner we decontrol the better. The Onslow Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, definitely suggested that decontrol should be so rapid that in 1923 it would be established, with an extension in certain cases to 1924 and 1925. But I equally recognise that if you are to have decontrol you will have definite hardship in certain cases, unless alleviation is provided by the jurisdiction which the Bill gives to
the County Courts. The question is whether 1925 is the right date for meeting this requirement. The Onslow Committee advocated very rapid decontrol. Personally, I differed from my colleagues on that Committee and held that the decontrol suggested was too rapid. The question to me was how you could meet the cases where, obviously, there was a great deal of difference between localities and between particular instances. My suggestion, embodied in a minority reservation, was that you should have decontrol by localities. Unfortunately, I was in a minority of one.
The Government have suggested a different method. They have suggested the method which is represented in Part II of this Bill. If we believe in the method suggested in Part II as a method for meeting the difficulties of individual tenants, we have a complete answer to those who say that 1925 is too early for decontrol. It seems clear to me that 1925 is a good date and that the method of dealing with individual cases through the County Court is a good method. Hon. Members on the opposite side, at any Tate those of the Labour party, are definitely against building by private enterprise. That being so, we do not argue with them on this Amendment. But many of its believe that the chief means of getting houses built for the working class must be by private enterprise, and in the immediate crisis we must encourage it. If we must encourage it, we must get decontrol as soon as possible, consistently with the protection of the tenant. Therefore, I believe that 1925 is the right date. It should be a firm date, with no latitude in the Act for extension, and the further method of Part II of the Bill should be made effective.

Mr. EDE: There is one point raised by me in Committee which has not been dealt with to-night. It is a practical point that the House should have before it, before it decides on the date. By fixing 1925 we allow only one complete building season for working-class property before we bring about decontrol. During the current year no great amount of working-class building will be done in the country. There are a few local authorities which are building houses, but they are building very few houses indeed. Next year is the only year in which there
will be a complete building season before decontrol. Of the working-class houses now being built, I have been unable to find any in my own county that are being built to be let; they are all being built to be sold. We have to recognise that, no matter what we should like, a great many of the working class in this country cannot expect to live in houses that they have to buy, and that, therefore, we are doing nothing at present to reduce the housing shortage, as far as they are concerned. I noticed with some consternation a speech made the other day, in another place by Viscount Burnham, a nobleman for whom I have every respect, who gave in my opinion, a very serious view of the situation with regard to the building of houses under the Government's Bill. Whether we like it or not, we are bound, in considering this Amendment to-night, to take into consideration what the position is likely to be in 1925, and much as the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) may have cheered private enterprise during the earlier part of his speech, his last few sentences must have dashed its hopes to the ground, because he told us that in 1925 he would not be prepared to take any steps toward bringing about decontrol unless the houses had been built. Private enterprise knows, as everyone else knows, that in 1925 the houses will not be there. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Scottish Under-Secretary for Health said that public enterprise would never produce a surplus of houses. When, within any of our recollections, did private enterprise deliberately produce a surplus of houses?

Lieut. - Colonel FREMANTLE: Certainly, it did.

Captain ELLIOT: There was a surplus of houses before the War.

Mr. EDE: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will only read the Reports of the Local Government Board for the years before the War, he will find that while there were empty houses, there were always overcrowded families—who should have been inhabiting those empty houses—and slums which ought to have been cleared away. There never has been, in the lifetime of any hon. Member in the House, a real surplus of houses in this country. There has been occasionally such a shifting of the population that some
district has been left by accident with a surplus of houses, but the facts of the past few years have removed that surplus from most of the districts. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that in the future private enterprise is deliberately going to produce a surplus of houses in any district, or that it will put the tenants in a position of being able to force down rents—

Captain ELLIOT: That is what I do believe, and that is what has happened. In the first place, there are 13,000 uninhabitable houses in Glasgow to-day, which are inhabited under the Rent Restrictions Act. It is not in any way because I want to see bad houses, but because I want to see good houses, that I propose to abolish control.

Mr. EDE: I was not brought up on the shorter Catechism, therefore I cannot follow the logic of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's interruption. He said there were 13,000 uninhabitable houses in Glasgow which were being inhabited, and that that was a proof that private enterprise would produce a surplus of good houses. That is a metaphysical subtlety that may appeal to Scottish minds, but which leaves me in the dark.

Captain ELLIOT: There were 50,000 empty houses in Glasgow when the War broke out.

Mr. EDE: I recollect Lord Rosebery going to Glasgow, and making a speech, in which he said that people paid for the privilege of holding on to a clothes-line in order to go to sleep.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going into history.

Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Are we to understand, Sir, that your ruling is that a quotation from Lord Rosebery's speech is ancient history?

Mr. EDE: We ought to know whether private enterprise is going to produce the surplus of houses necessary before we settle the period of decontrol. I agree with what has been said by hon. Members, that the present state of uncertainty is bad for private enterprise in the building trade. After the speech of the hon. Member for West Woolwich to-night, that uncertainty will be converted almost into certainty that decontrol is not coming in
1925. The date deliberately selected, for reasons given, by the minority members of the Onslow Committee, was 1930. I have heard nothing on the Committee stage nor in the House to-night that has convinced me that 1925 is going to see that surplus of houses which, it is admitted, must exist before we can safely bring about a change. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) said that decontrol would produce the houses, but he gave us no proof that it would produce the houses at rents that the ordinary wage-earner can pay, if there is to be one house per family. If we are going to go on the assumption that two or three families are to be regarded as the normal occupants of a working-class house, then it may produce the houses, but until the hon. and gallant Gentleman can produce some evidence that within the period up to 1925 houses will be produced in sufficient numbers and at a rent to enable one family to occupy one house his remarks are beside the point. I have not heard any argument which has convinced me that the Onslow Committee were wrong when they gave 1930 as the date of decontrol, and this House will be wise to insert that date, because nothing has been said to foreshadow that the houses will be there before then.

Mr. PRINGLE: We have been interested in the speeches made on the opposite side of the House. We have had the advantage of hearing speeches, both from the Government Front Bench and from the Third Bench below the Gangway. It is interesting to observe that both the speakers belong to the same profession.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: As a point of personal explanation, may I say that I differ in my profession from my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. PRINGLE: I was dealing with the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) and with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Scottish Under-Secretary. Those were the two Gentlemen with whom I was concerned for the moment. I was frankly disappointed with the speech of the Scottish Under-Secretary. I thought, when he deferred his reply to such a late period in the Debate, that he meant to
announce some concession on behalf of the Government. I observed that the arguments put forward in the course of the discussion from this side of the House were, obviously, influencing him, and I hoped that the Government would not adhere to the figure they had placed in the Bill. While the result was not as I expected, there was clear evidence in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech that he had been influenced by the arguments, because he is very rarely reduced to the obscurity which marked his speech tonight when he is able to place a sound argument before the House. There were many points which he took up which amazed all those who, at other times, have been impressed by the lucidity of his reasoning. He said that until decontrol took place we should get no houses, and that, in other words, house-building will only begin in 1925. That is an interesting prospect, both from the point of view of the House and of the Government but it is most interesting of all from the point of view of the poor people outside, who have then to face decontrol. In other words, they are to be no better off in 1925. They are to be left in exactly the same position, with the same problems, the same perplexities, and the same difficulties.
There was one illuminating observation in his speech. He described this Bill as a shock absorber. It is not a contribution to the problem of housing at all, it is a shock absorber. It is to absorb the shock of Mitcham and of Willesden, and I make bold to say that when 1925 comes it will be necessary to have another shock absorber, and that, in those circumstances, we shall have another two years added, possibly to tide over a General Election. This is all in keeping with the hand to mouth and haphazard method in which this question of rent control has been dealt with from the beginning. We had one temporary Act in 1915, another in 1917, and another in 1919—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would point out that the hon. Member is becoming historical rather than prophetic.

Mr. PRINGLE: I agree, but the soundest ground for prophecy is the experience of the past. It is on that basis I build up the predictions which I now make. I do not wish to amplify the illustration. I have already enumerated
the Acts which we have had, all of a temporary nature, all intended to deal with this situation and all to bring decontrol to an end when the particular Act expired. Let us take what happened under the original Act. We are now amending and continuing that Act, and I hope I am entitled to refer to what happened when it was under discussion in this House and in another place. The House of Commons then was working under conditions of great difficulty, and the Report stage was taken at a single Sitting, and wound up at 3.30 in the morning, which accounts to some extent for the character of the legislation. At the end of the Report stage, there was not a word of discussion on the question of the duration of control—a monstrous situation. When the Minister of that date introduced the Bill, it was on the basis that when the three years had expired, there would be an adequate number of houses and control would come to an end. That was the prophecy then confidently made, and the same thing was said by another Minister in another place who stated:
We realise it is essential to get back to the ordinary economic basis to encourage people to build houses and invest money in houses.
They are saying the same thing now, but are they going to do anything towards that end in his Bill? The same Minister said on that occasion:
This Bill is a step in the direction of the restoration of normal uncontrolled conditions.
That was the original Act. How far have we got?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: A step.

Mr. PRINGLE: The condition in regard to the housing shortage is practically as bad to-day as when those words were uttered. There are as many people living to-day in overcrowded and slum conditions as there were when those words were uttered. It has been no step at all. On the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health, it was a barrier and an obstacle to the provision of houses. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says so long as you have control, houses cannot be built, and here is the extraordinary dilemma in which the Government are placed. They say, "Let us have control for another two years. As a consequence,
no houses will be built; therefore there will be as great a demand at the end of the two years as there is now, for the continuance of control. Then we will have another period of control, during which still no more houses will be built." Is it not better to have a figure, a date such as that suggested in the Amendment, and put forward by the Minority Report of the Onslow Committee? Why not fix 1930 as a definite time at which there is some reasonable hope that houses will be provided, and we will have an end of this legislation altogether? I am sure that commends itself to the hon. Gentleman opposite. Even the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has not had the hardihood to suggest that there will be houses in 1925. What is then to be the result? You will have another series of by-elections in 1925. [Interruption.] Of course, the Government will not have them of their own accord, but will do everything possible to avoid them, but there are reasons why by-elections occur, and they will have the same effect upon the Government as the effect which produced the policy contained in this Bill.
We shall have an interesting situation thereafter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health has invented a new description for the Second Part of this Bill. It is to be called the intermediate state or what in theological language is known as purgatory. I believe the hon. Member for West Woolwich will accept that description. It precisely describes these intermediate provisions which are so unsatisfactory from the points of view of landlords and tenants, that the hon. Member is opposing the Second Part of the Bill. It would be out of order to quote the Second Part of the Bill, and what it actually proposes, although I should have liked to point out how unsatisfactory its conditions are from every point of view. As I say, it would be much more satisfactory to have a definite date when control is to come to an end, and that date should be fixed with all the authority of Ministers, as the date at which it is likely, at any rate, houses will be provided for the people and no further legislation of this kind will be required. If you do not, we have this new form of bureaucratic and semi-judicial administrative control, something such as nobody has ever seen before in this country, a
system which is to be settled by regulations made by the Minister, setting up shadowy Committees with no sort of legal authority at all, who are to intervene from day to day and month to month as between landlord and tenant. Surely nothing could be worse or more unsatisfactory and nothing should less commend itself to the House and the country. The interesting feature of this Debate is the complete admission from the colleague of the Minister of Health that the Housing Bill which is now going through Parliament is worthless from the point of view of providing houses—that until there is decontrol, there are to be no houses, and that therefore the new Housing Bill is absolutely useless. I agree with the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), who is always so consistent about these matters, and I am sorry I was not here when he moved the rejection of that Bill on the Third Reading, or I should have supported him. The Government is in a position of hopeless absurdity and inconsistency. With the one hand they are offering the Housing Bill which is to provide houses, but with the other hand they are offering this Bill with a limitation in it under which they confess houses are not to be supplied. Then when 1925 comes along we will have another panic on the part of the Government, another surrender, another hasty, ill-conceived, ill-adjusted and ill-drafted Measure, rushed on to the Statute Book which will do nothing except provide work for lawyers and decisions in the Law Courts.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I should not have intervened had it not been for two statements of the hon. and gallant Member the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health. He said we had a surplus of houses prior to the War, and he quoted the figure of 50,000. I remind him that he also told the House recently that we have 51,000 empty houses in Scotland at the present time. If the fact that we had 50,000 houses is a proof that we did not require houses, then we have 1,000 more to-day to prove that we do not require them now—according to the logic of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Government appointed a Royal Commission on housing in Scotland in 1913 which reported in 1917 that we were still thousands of houses short of the required number at that time. Yet we have
the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in a responsible position in this House, trying to lead us to believe that we had no shortage of houses until the War. The War did not shorten the housing supply at all, but simply accentuated a process which had been going on. As far back as 1905 the building of houses for the working people had practically ceased, and I do not believe you intend, with your Bill, to provide houses, either in 1925 or in 1930.
The suggestion is made that we favour municipal building. The Members on these benches favour the building of houses by any means by which they can be got. The need is so great that we do not care who builds them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not let the ex-Service men build them when they came back from the War?"] I was one of the men who promised to help the ex-service men when they came back, and in pursuance of that promise I am advocating the building of more houses now. We do not care who builds the houses, but I do not believe that private enterprise will provide houses, either in 1925 or 1930, for this reason, that, supposing they set to work with the best will in the world, other private enterprises will hinder them by raising the price of building materials. We have the light castings combine already increasing their prices; they are trying to make hay while the sun shines, and with the best will in the world private enterprise will not provide the houses. Your terms and conditions are such that very few public authorities will move in the matter. We have a shorter building season in Scotland than you have in England, and the two years under this Bill are practically useless as far as we are concerned. We have thousands of houses that have been condemned, and instead of being given any hope, we get Bills of this kind and speeches of that kind, which mean nothing. I hope the House will agree to make the date 1930, but even at that date, if this Government be still in power, we shall not have houses for the people.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming very much a Second Reading Debate, and I think we had better now take a decision.

Question put, "That the word 'twenty-five' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 147.

Division No. 275.]
AYES.
[7.20 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Kenyon, Barnet


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lansbury, George


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gosling, Harry
Leach, W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lee, F.


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Lever, Sir Arthur L.


Attlee, C. R.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Linfield, F. C.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lowth, T.


Barnes, A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William


Batey, Joseph
Groves, T.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Grundy, T. W.
M'Entee, V. L.


Bonwick, A.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
McLaren, Andrew


Bowdler, W. A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Briant, Frank
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Broad, F. A.
Hardie, George D.
March, S.


Brotherton, J.
Harney, E. A.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Harris, Percy A.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Burgess, S.
Hastings, Patrick
Millar, J. D.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Morel, E. D.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Hayday Arthur
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Chapple, W. A.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Mosley, Oswald


Charleton, H. C.
Hemmerde, E. G.
Muir, John W.


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Murnin, H.


Collison, Levi
Herriotts, J.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hill, A.
O'Grady, Captain James


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hillary, A. E.
Oliver, George Harold


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, G. H.
Paling, W.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Duncan, C.
Hodge, Lieut.-Colonel J. P. (Preston)
Phillipps, Vivian


Dunnico, H.
Irving, Dan
Ponsonby, Arthur


Ede, James Chuter
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Potts, John S.


Edmonds, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Riley, Ben


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ritson, J.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Falconer, J.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Foot, Isaac
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Royce, William Stapleton


Saklatvala, S.
Spoor, B. G.
Weir, L. M.


Salter, Dr. A.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Welsh, J. C.


Scrymgeour, E.
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Westwood, J.


Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Whiteley, W.


Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shinwell, Emanuel
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thornton, M.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Tillett, Benjamin
Wintringham, Margaret


Simpson, J. Hope
Trevelyan, C. P.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Sinclair, Sir A.
Turner, Ben
Wright, W.


Sitch, Charles H.
Wallhead, Richard C.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Smillie, Robert
Warne, G. H.



Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Snell, Harry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Mr. J. Robertson and Mr. Morgan Jones.


Snowden, Philip
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Manville, Edward


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
Flanagan, W. H.
Margesson, H. D. R.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Foreman, Sir Henry
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forestier-Walker, L.
Mercer, Colonel H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Barnston, Major Harry
Furness, G. J.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Becker, Harry
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nall, Major Joseph


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Goff, Sir R. Park
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Berry, Sir George
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Betterton, Henry B.
Greene, Lt.-Col. St. W. (Hack'y, N.)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Blundell, F. N.
Gretton, Colonel John
Paget, T. G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pease, William Edwin


Brass, Captain W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pennefather, De Fonblangue


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Halstead, Major D.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bruford, R.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Pielou, D. P.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Harrison, F. C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Price, E. G.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Privett, F. J.


Butcher, Sir John George
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Raine, W.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Remer, J. R.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Remnant, Sir James


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rentoul, G. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Clarry, Reginald George
Houfton, John Plowright
Richardson, Lt.-Cot. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hughes, Collingwood
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hume, G. H.
Rothschild, Lionel de


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hurd, Percy A.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cope, Major William
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Russell, William (Bolton)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Jephcott, A. R.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Courthope, Lieut-Col. George L.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Johnson, Sir L. (Waithamstow, E.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandon, Lord


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lamb, J. Q.
Shepperson, E. W.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shipwright, Captain D.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Singleton, J. E.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Skelton, A. N.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Lorden, John William
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
Lorimer, H. D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lort-Williams, J.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lougher, L.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-




Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Wells, S. R.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Thorpe, Captain John Henry
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Titchfield, Marquess of
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Tubbs, S. W.
Winterton, Earl
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wise, Frederick
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wolmer, Viscount

Division No. 276.]
AYES.
[9.49 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Furness, G. J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William


Apsley, Lord
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Pease, William Edwin


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Penny, Frederick George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gretton, Colonel John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Banks, Mitchell
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Perring, William George


Barnston, Major Harry
Halstead, Major D.
Pielou, D. P.


Becker, Harry
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Harrison, F. C.
Price, E. G.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Harvey, Major S. E.
Privett, F. J.


Berry, Sir George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rae, Sir Henry N.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Raine, W.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Blundell, F. N.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Brass, Captain W.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Remer, J. R.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Remnant, Sir James


Brittain, Sir Harry
Houfton, John Plowright
Rentoul, G. S.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Bruford, R.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hughes, Collingwood
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hume, G. H.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rothschild, Lionel de


Butcher, Sir John George
Hurd, Percy A.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Button, H. S.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Cassels, J. D.
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sandon, Lord


Clarry, Reginald George
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Clayton, G. C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, J. Q.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Shipwright, Captain D.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sinclair, Sir A.


Cope, Major William
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Singleton, J. E.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Skelton, A. N.


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Lorden, John William
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lorimer, H. D.
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Lort-Williams, J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Lougher, L.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Lord


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Dawson, Sir Philip
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Manville, Edward
Sugden, Sir Wilfred H.


Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Ellis, R. G.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Thornton, M.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mercer, Colonel H.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Titchfield, Marquess of


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tubbs, S. W.


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.
Morris, Harold
Wallace, Captain E.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Fildes, Henry
Murchison, C. K.
Wells, S. R.


Flanagan, W. H.
Nall, Major Joseph
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Foreman, Sir Henry
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)




Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Winterton, Earl
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


Wise, Frederick
Yerburgh, R. D. T.



Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)






NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Harney, E. A.
Riley, Ben


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hastings, Patrick
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Ammon, Charles George
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Attlee, C. R.
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Royce, William Stapleton


Batey, Joseph
Herriotts, J.
Scrymgeour, E.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hill, A.
Sexton, James


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hillary, A. E.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Bonwick, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Broad, F. A.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Shinwell, Emanuel


Brotherton, J.
Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simpson, J. Hope


Buckie, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Burgess, S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sitch, Charles H.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smillie, Robert


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Chapple, W. A.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Snowden, Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Kenyon, Barnet
Sullivan, J.


Collie, Sir John
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Collison, Levi
Lawson, John James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Leach, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lee, F.
Tillett, Benjamin


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Linfield, F. C.
Turner, Ben


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lunn, William
Warne, G. H.


Duncan, C.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Ede, James Chuter
M'Entee, V. L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edmonds, G.
March, S.
Weir, L. M.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Welsh, J. C.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Millar, J. D.
Westwood, J.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Morel, E. D.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Falconer, J.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Foot, Isaac
Mosley, Oswald
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Muir, John W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wintringham, Margaret


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Phillipps, Vivian



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. T. Griffiths.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pringle, W. M. R.



Hancock, John George
Richards, R.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction on rights of Sub-tenants.)

Where a sub-tenant is in occupation of part of a dwelling-house the landlord may apply to the Court to determine whether any room or rooms in the part of the dwelling-house so sub-let shall be given up to a person who is prepared to purchase the dwelling-house as a residence in the event of the Court deciding in favour of the applicant.—[Mr. Penny.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. PENNY: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not think many words are necessary to explain the object of this Clause the terms of which are, in themselves, sufficiently explanatory. Cases have come to my knowledge of sub-tenants who are left in possession of part of a house, and the portion which has been vacated by the tenant is such that it is next to impossible to find another tenant to take over the vacant part. It is not my desire to interfere with those sub-tenants who have no more than reasonable accommodation, but as it now stands a hardship is inflicted on the small owner in this respect. In the case of a man who has invested all his savings in one house, a sub-tenant should not be entitled to claim the right to retain an unreasonable amount of the accommodation of that house, merely because the previous tenant was content to live in limited accommodation and "just anywhere." The Clause leaves the matter with the Court to decide and cannot lead to any arbitrary interference with the rights of the sub-tenant because it may safely be assumed that the Court would require conclusive evidence before deciding in favour of an applicant.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand the object of this Clause is to meet a case where a landlord could make an arrangement with a tenant to sell a house, if it were not that the sub-tenant will not part with his sub-tenancy. The Clause as it stands does not appear to give any directions to the Court as to how they are to determine the question which is put to them, but assuming that the Court is intended to determine in such cases in favour of the landlord, I would suggest to my hon. Friend that the sub-tenant has as much right to protection as the tenant. That is the whole theory of the Act. I think if my hon. Friend will consider what might take place, he will see that the landlord is not the only party in these cases. He could sell the house to the tenant, subject to the condition that the tenant would have to take over the sub-tenant, and, if that were done, the tenant would then be, as regards the sub-tenant in the same position as the landlord was in with regard to the tenant. Therefore, being a landlord who had obtained possession of the house, after the 30th June, 1922, he could claim and get possession of the house under Clause 3, Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), of the Bill, and unless greater hardship was caused to the tenant than to himself, he would not have to find alternative accommodation. In these circumstances, I think perhaps my hon. Friend might not think it necessary to press his Amendment.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs)—(Facilities for rights of possession for building purposes)—should come as an Amendment to Clause 3.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Notice to landlords from tenants as to sub-tenants.)

A tenant of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies shall, on being so requested in writing by the landlord of the dwelling-house, supply him with a statement in writing of any sub-letting, giving particu-
lars of the occupancy, including rent charged, and if without reasonable excuse he fails within fourteen days to do so or supplies a statement which is false in any material particular he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two pounds.—[Sir W. Raeburn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir W. RAEBURN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope the Minister will accept this very reasonable Clause. The landlord cannot possibly know under this Bill what his tenant is doing in the way of subletting, and unless he does know, it is impossible for him to arrive at the amount that the tenant is required to pay him as a permitted increase under Clause 6. Therefore, all that is asked here is that when a house or part of a house is sublet, the tenant should give to the landlord a note of the sub-let. It is necessary in the working of this Bill that some such Clause as this should be inserted, because otherwise there would be a great deal of trouble in getting the particulars required.

Major MOLLOY: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The purpose of this Clause seems to be reasonable. If a landlord is not to be deprived of the powers and rights that he is to have under the Bill, it is necessary that he should be informed of any sub-letting done by the tenant in order that he may be in a position to claim his rights. I have, however, one Amendment to suggest, namely, instead of saying, "A tenant of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies," the Clause should read, "A tenant of any dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies." If the hon. Baronet would agree to make that Amendment, I would be glad to accept the Clause.

Sir W. RAEBURN: I shall be glad to accept that Amendment.

Mr. PRINGLE: Before the Clause is read a Second time, I think it is very important that the House should know exactly what it is intended to do. This is a penal Clause, and we want to know what good it is going to do to impose these requirements upon the tenant, and why in all the circumstances this should for the first time be imposed upon him. I understand that there are two classes of case. There is the case where there is a prohibition against all sub-letting,
in which case this new Clause could not arise, but where sub-letting has been allowed you are altering the contract and imposing a new term, and to that extent, therefore, you are guilty of retrospective legislation. You are legislatively introducing a new term into a contract made between landlord and tenant which was not there before, and, furthermore, for a breach of this new term you are imposing a penalty on the tenant. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn) and the Minister of Health spoke about landlords preserving their rights, but what rights are they losing by the sub-letting at the present time?

Sir W. RAEBURN: I do not think the hon. Member has read the Clause. They are entitled to what they never had before.

Mr. PRINGLE: The rent which the subtenant gives to the tenant has no relevance to the statutory rent which the tenant has to pay to the landlord under the Bill. That is a fixed thing. You have the standard rent, plus certain increases under the original Act.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will look at Clause 6, I think that will clear his mind.

Mr. PRINGLE: That has no relevance to the point that the hon. Baronet is raising.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) is at a disadvantage in this matter, and perhaps he will read Clause 6 while I explain that that Clause permits an increase both to the tenant and the landlord, and it is to be sure that the landlord gets his share of the increase if the tenant raises the rent to the sub-tenant that this Clause has been moved by the hon. baronet. I would further take the opportunity of referring the hon. Member for Penistone to Section 11 of the principal Act, where he will see a Section in almost identical terms, only it happens to apply to the landlord instead of to the tenant.

Mr. PRINGLE: I can understand it in regard to the landlord, but, so far as I can understand, there is no real need for imposing this penalty at all. If there had been a necessity for a penalty, the proper place to have put it would have been as a Sub-section of Clause 6, where you are dealing with increases in the rent of sub-
tenancies. This new Clause, standing by itself, seems to me to come in an improper place altogether, and if it is to be brought in relation to Clause 6, as to which I am not quite convinced, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, it should have been a new Sub-section of that Clause.

Mr. HARNEY: I quite agree with what the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) says. I cannot, myself, understand upon what ground a penalty is imposed upon a tenant for not giving particulars that the landlord, in many cases, has no legal right whatever to require. Suppose the tenant holds under certain circumstances that he is entitled to sub-let without the consent of the landlord. Is it not a very monstrous thing to say to a tenant, "Though you are entitled to sub-let without giving your landlord any notice, and without his consent, still, you may be sent to gaol if you do not comply with certain particulars"? I cannot see what is the necessity for this drastic enforcing on the tenant to do what is called for under this Clause. We have been told that it is in order to bring about compliance with the requirements of Clause 6, and perhaps the Minister will now be given an opportunity of explaining what has always puzzled me in reading this Clause 6. As I read it—I may be quite wrong—it means that, if a tenant sub-lets, then the tenant is permitted to increase the sub-letting rent by 10 per cent., and the landlord is entitled to increase the direct rent by half that amount. I could well understand a Clause being put in to this effect: "If you, the tenant, sublet the premises to a person in whose choice I have no say, and subject me to the risk of having my premises knocked about by a person of whom I know nothing, then, in order in some way to enable me to meet that risk, I am to be entitled to charge you, the tenant, some more rent." But I am puzzled to know why the tenant should charge 10 per cent. more to the sub-tenant for the tenant doing that which subjects the landlord to the risk, which alone justifies any higher charge of rent at all.
That occurred to me just now, and perhaps at the same time the Minister of Health would explain what really is the object of that Clause. I repeat what I
got up to say, that I am utterly at a loss—up to this moment I have heard no explanation—to know why this most drastic punishment, this introduction of a penal Clause into apparently a civil Measure, is justified on the ground that a landlord may desire for his own private purposes to have information as to what a tenant quite legally does, and because a tenant chooses to say: "Landlord, mind your own business, and do not come prying into mine," the tenant can be sent to gaol. It is, in my opinion, a most unwarranted and wholly inexplicable Clause.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I do not agree in the least with the suggestion that the landlord is alone the profiteer, because we have had abundant experience of cases where the tenant of the landlord exploits the sub-tenants equally as much as the landlord exploits the tenant. I myself could give scores of illustrations, within my own personal knowledge, where the tenant himself is a worse profiteer than many landlords, and, because he knows the local circumstances, takes advantage of them. I gather that the only reason for this particular Clause is that Clause 6 enables the landlord to participate in the benefits of the tenant from the sub-tenant, and in order that those facts shall be known, and that a right proportion is to be allocated or demanded, as the case might be, some information must be supplied to the landlord, and it can only be supplied by the tenant. As I understand that to be the object of this new Clause, so far as I am concerned, I want to protect the tenant against either his own particular class or anyone else robbing him, and as I know this is done, I am inclined to support the new Clause.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I quite agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has just said, in so far as he is concerned to say that he is as much opposed to profiteering by tenants against their sub-tenants as any other form of unfair use of opportunity, but what I cannot understand, and what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has not made plain to me, is what the effect of this new Clause is. If, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, it is solely to give some information upon which Clause 6 can operate, I should have submitted, with great respect, as a point of order, that it ought to come as a qualification of Clause 6. If it is a new
Clause standing by itself, it appears to put a tenant under liability to criminal punishment if he fails to answer a question, which may be, from the public point of view, a perfectly good question to ventilate, but which, as far as I can see, gives no consequential right to the landlord whatever. What legal right follows to the landlord because he has ascertained the information? I am under the right hon. Gentleman's censure when he says we are under a disadvantage. I am myself: I do not follow it, and I cannot help suspecting there are a good many in the House at the present moment who do not understand what the landlord is going to get by putting this interrogatory, and what justifies punishing the tenant because he does not answer the landlord's question. I should be very much obliged if that could be explained. Of course, we are all perfectly willing that there should not be exploitation of his position unfairly by the tenant.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I confess—of course, I did not put this Clause down—as far as I am concerned, it does seem to me that it would come better as an Amendment to Clause 6 than as a new Clause. If that course commends itself to the House, and my hon. Friend chooses to withdraw his new Clause, an Amendment could be put down in another place or later on to the relative Clause. Unless the tenant will tell the landlord what benefit he is getting from the sub-tenant, the landlord cannot be sure whether he is entitled to any increase himself. Therefore this Amendment is introduced, in order to give the landlord that information, without which he cannot obtain the right given to him.

Mr. SPEAKER: On the point of Order raised, I was originally in some doubt about the place to insert this proposal. I think it is made clear now that it would be much better if it came up on Clause 6, and, if that be the case, we had better not pursue it now.

Mr. PRINGLE: I only wish to point out that the new Clause, as it stands, is by no means confined to sub-tenancies which come within Clause 6.

Mr. SHINWELL: In the event of this proposed new Clause being allowed to be
moved in connection with Clause 6, will discussion be permitted?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.

Sir W. RAEBURN: I am perfectly willing to withdraw the Clause, and move an Amendment on Clause 6, as it seems to me to fit in better there.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 2.—(Exclusion of dwelling-houses from application of principal Act in certain cases.)

(1) Where the landlord of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies is in possession of the whole of the dwelling-house at the passing of this Act, or comes into actual possession of the whole of the dwelling-house at any time after the passing of this Act, then from and after the passing of this Act, or from and after the date when the landlord subsequently comes into possession, as the case may be, the principal Act shall cease to apply to the dwelling-house:

Provided that where part of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies is lawfully sub-let, and the part so sub-let is also a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies, the principal Act shall not cease to apply to the part so sub-let by reason
of the tenant being in or coming into actual possession of that part, and if the landlord is in, or comes into actual possession of any part not so sub-let the principal Act shall cease to apply to that part, notwithstanding that a sub-tenant continues in, or retains, possession of any other part by virtue of the principal Act:

Provided also that where a landlord comes into possession under an order or judgment made or given after the passing of this Act, on the ground of non-payment of rent, the principal Act shall, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section, continue to apply to the dwelling-house.

(2) Where, at any time after the passing of this Act, the landlord of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies grants to the tenant a valid lease of the dwelling-house for a term ending at some date after the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen
hundred and twenty-six, being a term of not less than two years, or enters into a valid agreement with the tenant for a tenancy for such a term, the principal Act shall, as from the commencement of the term, cease to apply to the dwelling-house, and nothing in the principal Act shall be taken as preventing or invalidating the payment of any agreed sum as part of the consideration for such lease or agreement:

Provided that where part of the dwelling-house is lawfully sub-let at the commencement of the term, and is a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies, that part shall, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section, continue to be a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies.

(3) From and after the passing of this Act, the principal Act shall not apply to a house or part of a house let as a separate dwelling if the house or the part of the house, as the case may be, consists wholly of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor.

Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment I select is that standing in the name of the Minister of Health.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "actual" ["comes into actual possession of the whole of the dwelling-house"].
This is one of a series of Amendments which must really be taken together. In Committee some doubt was expressed as to the clearness of the word "possession," where it occurs in this Clause, and it was suggested that possession might not really mean physical possession.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. Am I right in presuming that, having called upon the Minister of Health to move his Amendment, you have passed over the Amendment, which, I assume, is in its right place—to leave out the Clause altogether?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.

Captain BENN: May I ask you, Sir, to indicate on which Amendment it would be possible to discuss this Clause, which is one of the vital Clauses of the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: An Amendment to leave out the Clause would involve a Second Reading Debate. That is the reason I thought fit to pass on to the Amendment in the name of the Minister.

Captain BENN: In selecting your Amendments, Sir, do you not intend to select any but Government Amendments on Clause 2, which, I have pointed out, is one of the vital Clauses of this Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I can argue with the hon. and gallant Member as to the way I pursue my duty.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was just explaining that, in order to meet the criticism that the word "possession" not defined in the Bill, I moved in Committee to insert the word "actual" in this Sub-section, but some further criticism was again directed to the word "actual," and, finally, I thought that, instead of repeating the word "actual," the better plan was to add a new Subsection, which would show what was meant by the word "possession."
10.0 P.M.
Therefore, I am now moving to leave out the word "actual," which was inserted in Committee, and, at the end of the Clause, I propose to move a new Sub-section explaining that the expression "possession" means "actuassion." I have taken advantage of the opportunity also to put in another point, to which some observations were directed in Committee. It was suggested to me that very often tenancies were changed with the consent of the landlord, and that this was a very common process in the case of small houses. It was pointed out that, as the Bill was drafted, in such a case the landlord would come into possession, and therefore the house would go out of control. That was not exactly what I had in view. Therefore, I have put into the new Sub-section the words:
and a landlord shall not be deemed to have come into possession by reason only of a change of tenancy made with his consent.

Mr. HARNEY: I oppose this Amendment, because it may be a means of drawing the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the exceedingly clumsy draftmanship of the Clause, if the word "actual" be put in in a separate Sub-section, as is now suggested. The difficulty is this: The Bill, as originally drawn, stated that decontrol was to take place when a landlord came into possession. Now he can come into possession technically either upon the termination of the contract, or on the termination of the statutory period which supervenes on the termination of the contract, and, therefore, it is necessary to find which date is intended by the Clause. If the Sub-section referred to be inserted, then this difficulty arises: You then say that "possession," whenever it
is in the Bill, means "actual possession." On the spot, a difficulty occurs to me. It is a principle running all through this Bill that in cases where alternative accommodation was a condition to obtaining possession, a landlord who wanted to obtain possession would always have to show that there was alternative accommodation, but you could only have alternative accommodation under this Bill when you had a house in actual possession, that is, a vacant house. If it is a vacant house, it is a decontrolled house.
Therefore you are in the position of saying: You, the landlord, shall not get possession unless you can find alternative accommodation, and you can only find alternative accommodation in a vacant house, and if the house is a vacant house, then it is a decontrolled house. There is the absurdity of this Amendment. May I point out another absurdity. The Law Courts will be greatly puzzled to know what is the meaning of the expression "'actual' possession." We know what "possession" means. We know what "entitled to possession" means, but what does "actual possession" mean? Does it mean physical occupancy? If it means physical occupancy, then what is to be done in the case like this: A tenant dies. He leaves no executors and no will. He leaves no widow. He is a poor person. The people do not for a month or two apply for letters of administration; probably they never will apply. Then the landlord comes up and says: "Your title has ceased, I take possession," and he walks into the house. Is that a decontrolled house or not? There is only one way, Mr. Speaker, and even from the mouths of babes and sucklings wisdom may come, and the right hon. Gentleman, for what it is worth, may take it from me that what I say is sufficient to show how the Clause at all events can be made intelligible, or his wishes made intelligible. I have endeavoured, I hope respectfully and not aggressively, to point out, not from a party point of view at all, but purely from a lawyer's point of view, the difficulties in the Clause as suggested. I wish to point out how, in my opinion, the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman can be more effectively brought about. He can substitute for the word "where" the word "whenever." Cross out all this meaningless verbiage about being in pos-
session, and coming into actual possession, and do without the new Clause he has spoken of, and make the Clause run simply this way:
Whenever the landlord is in possession
—that is all that has to be said." Is in possession" covers the past, the present and the future. "Whenever" applies to a particular event whether past, present, or future, and then he is in this position:
Whenever the landlord finds himself in possession of the house then the house is decontrolled.
As it stands now it will lead to the difficulty of the alternative accommodation I have mentioned, and lead to the further difficulty that no Court will know how to construe the words that have no legal meaning, namely, "actual' possession."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I think we might have some comment upon the very lucid observations of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney). The right hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak, but he can always speak again by leave of the House. The point put forward is a real one, and we should have some elucidation of it from the Minister. What are his thoughts on a matter that will affect many thousands of people?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The first point put to me by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) is a question that ought to be raised on Clause 3 into which it comes properly: more so than here. As regards the second point that the Courts would not know what the word "actual" would mean, the hon. Member is mistaken. The Courts do know what the word means. In view, however, of the fact that I might be questioned on it, I have fortified myself with one or two quotations. Take, firstly, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary. It says:
Where the word has a constructive legal meaning not completely corresponding to the fact it indicates, then the addition of 'actual' will intensify that word, so that it will not be fully satisfied by such legal meaning.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Clear as mud!"] In Section 26 of the Representation of the People Act, 1882, the expression "actual" again occurs. The Courts have defined its meaning as follows:
We think this word means a possession in fact as distinct from a possession in law.
Then again Mr. Justice Grove in Orme's case, L.R. 8 C.P. at page 301, says:
The meaning of the word is clear and simple. Actual possession would seem to mean actual and not constructive possession.
In these definitions, may I add I have the acquiescence of my right hon and learned friend the Attorney-General?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "actual" ["coming into actual possession"].

Leave out the word "actual" ["comes into actual possession"].—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. G. HURST: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
The House will remember that until June, 1925, those premises which are partly business premises and partly a dwelling-house are protected by law. From that general rule this Sub-section excepts licensed houses, and in order to justify that exception from the general law, one would imagine that the characteristic point would be either great hardship to the landlord or else that the tenant in such cases enjoyed unusual economic advantages. Neither of these characteristics appears to apply to licensed premises which are usually owned by well-to-do proprietors and tenanted by persons who could not find other premises easily. Therefore there seems to be no ground for this particular exception. In order to ascertain what the ground is on which this exception has been made I beg to move.

Mr. FOOT: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain precisely why this exception should be made, having regard to the fact that very often in country districts the licensed victualler, carrying on his business, is also concerned with other work. Very often the work of carrying on his inn is only part of his activities. Very often the work of carrying on the inn is carried on by his wife, or with the assistance of his daughter, while he himself might be the village carpenter or engaged in some local industry. There are cases, I am aware, where if the licensed house is removed from the protection of the Act very considerable hardship may be inflicted. I know there have been, in relation to
licensed houses, special cases, and there have been cases in the Courts. I think that, seeing that the licences are generally held by large corporations—

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!

Mr. FOOT: —or held by wealthy companies, they ought to be put into no better position than anybody else in the country. Though I think those who keep the small licensed premises, particularly in the large rural districts, should have the protection of the Act.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These words were inserted because it was felt that there would be a considerable hardship if the tenant so conducted himself as to jeopardise the renewal of the licence. I understood that this Clause would not be resisted, but as some criticism was made upon it in Committee, I suggested that the various interests should consult together, and see if they could frame an Amendment which would be acceptable to the House. I see that there is another Amendment later on standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Spelthorne Division (Sir P. Pilditch), and if that represents an agreed Amendment then I am prepared to accept the Amendment which has just been moved.

Sir P. PILDITCH: In reply to what has fallen from the Minister of Health, the Amendment standing in my name to which he refers provides for the reinclusion of licensed premises in control again in the case of any offence being committed by a licensed victualler. It is an agreed Amendment between the parties interested. The hon. Member who seconds my Amendment represents the licensed victuallers, and I shall move that Amendment and another small one which precedes it at the proper time if the omission of this Sub-section from the Bill is accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: At the end of the Clause to insert a new Sub-section—
(4) For the purposes of this section the expression "possession" shall be construed as meaning actual possession,' and a landlord shall not be deemed to have come into possession by reason only of a change of tenancy made with his consent."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. HASTINGS: As far as I am personally concerned, I agree with every word that has been said as to the inapplicability of the word "actual." [HON.
MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] If there was the slightest doubt before the meaning of the words "actual possession," this Amendment makes it absolutely unintelligible. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the words "actual possession" really mean, and are intended to mean, possession by the landlord himself, I cannot for the life of me understand the meaning of the words:
A landlord shall not be deemed to have come into possession by reason only of a change of tenancy made with his consent.
If somebody else has come into possession the landlord is not deemed to have come into possession. It will be seen that he has not come into actual possession by merely allowing one tenant to change with another. I think on this point somebody must have been under a misapprehension as to what is the meaning of the word "actual." I venture to say if the Court at any time came to consider what is the meaning of the word "possession," and finds in this proposed Amendment a clear statement that the intention of the House was that mere change of possession does not mean actual possession, the learned Judges who will have to determine what "actual possession" means will find themselves in a difficulty.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not a lawyer and therefore do not appreciate these subtleties as to a landlord being in possession when he is not actually in possession. If a tenant goes out and there is an interval before the new tenant comes in, obviously the landlord would be in actual possession, as the outgoing tenant would hand the key to him. We say here that, although according to the construction of the Act he will be in actual possession, he shall in these circumstances not be deemed to be so if the change of tenant which has taken place is with his consent.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Restriction on right to possession.)

(1) Sub-section (1) of Section five of the principal Act (which relates to restriction on right to possession) shall from and after the passing of this Act have effect subject to the following amendments:—
(a) for paragraph (b) the following paragraph shall be substituted—

"(b) the tenant or any person residing or lodging with him or being
1072
his sub-tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for an immoral or illegal purpose, or the condition of the dwelling-house has, in the opinion of the Court, deteriorated owing to acts of waste by or the neglect or default of the tenant or any such person, and, where such person is a lodger or sub-tenant, the Court is satisfied that the tenant has not, before the making or giving of the order or judgment, taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of the lodger or sub-tenant; or"
(b) for paragraph (d) the following paragraph shall be substituted:

"(d) the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age or for any person bone fide residing with him or for some person engaged in his whole-time employment or in the whole-time employment of some tenant from him or with whom, conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for such employment has been entered into and (except as otherwise provided by this Sub-section) the Court is satisfied that alternative accommodation is available consisting of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies, and which is reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent, character, and proximity to place of work and is reasonably suitable to his means; or"
(c for paragraph (e) the following paragraph shall be substituted—

"(e) the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the purpose of the execution of the statutory duties or powers of a local authority, or statutory undertaking, or for any purpose which, in the opinion of the Court, is in the public interest, and the Court in either case is satisfied as aforesaid as respects alternative accommodation; or"
(d) the following paragraph shall be added at the end of paragraph (g)—

"(h) the tenant without the consent of the landlord has at any time after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three assigned or sub-let the whole of the dwelling-house or sub-let part of the dwelling-house, the remainder being already sub-let ";
(e) in paragraph (ii) the words "or with whom, conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for employment on such work has been entered into" shall be inserted after the word "holding";
(f) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (iv):

"(iv) where the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any of his children, and where the landlord or the husband or wife of the landlord, did not become the landlord before the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, the Court is satisfied that greater hardship would be caused by refusing to grant an order or judgment for possession than by granting it."

(2) Sub-section (6) of Section five of the principal Act shall be extended—

(a) so as to apply in any case where the landlord has, after the passing of this Act, obtained an order or judgment for possession or ejectment on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of the said Section, and it is subsequently made to appear to the Court that the order or judgment was obtained by misrepresentation or concealment of material facts; and
(b) so as to authorise the Court, in addition to making an order for payment of compensation by the landlord to the former tenant, to direct that the dwelling-house shall not be excluded from the principal Act by reason of the landlord having come into actual possession thereof under the said order or judgment, and if such a direction is given the principal Act shall apply and be deemed to have applied to the dwelling-house as from the date mentioned in such direction.

Mr. HARNEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), to leave out the words
(b) the tenant or any person residing or lodging with him or being his sub-tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for an immoral or illegal purpose, or the condition of the dwelling-house has, in the opinion of the Court, deteriorated owing to acts of waste by or the neglect or default of the tenant or any such person, and, where such person is a lodger or sub-tenant, the Court is satisfied that the tenant has not, before the making or giving of the order or judgment, taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of the lodger or sub-tenant; or
and to insert instead thereof the words
(b) Unless in the opinion of the Court the tenant has used, or knowingly permitted the use of, the premises for any immoral or illegal purposes or in any other manner reasonably calculated to seriously deteriorate the property or disturb or annoy adjoining occupiers.
The object of this Amendment is to remove certain obscurities in the Sub-
section as it stands, and also to meet a difficulty that has arisen in the working out of the Clause. The Clause as it appears in the Bill says that
the tenant or any person residing or lodging with him, or being his sub-tenant, has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for an immoral or illegal purpose, or the condition of the dwelling-house has, in the opinion of the Court, deteriorated owing to acts of waste by or the neglect or default of the tenant or any such person,
the landlord shall recover possession as in the old Act, and shall be at liberty to decontrol the whole house. The difficulty in working the Section in the old Act was this. Under the old Act, the only person whose conduct would entitle the landlord to recover possession was the tenant, who would, of course, be responsible for his own acts, but even there the County Court Judges found the greatest difficulty.
What occurred most frequently was that, when the day for paying the weekly rent came round, there would be a row between the tenant's wife and the subtenant's wife, or between the landlord's wife and the tenant's wife—between the person who was paying and the person who was being paid. They often went to the Police Court, and one or the other was summoned for assault. A conviction having been obtained in the Police Court, they then went to the County Court and said, "This person has been committing a nuisance." The County Court Judge had to consider the matter and to say whether a nuisance within the meaning of the Section had been committed if the tenant or the sub-tenant, as the case might be, had committed an assault, or used bad language, or so misconducted himself or herself as to have been convicted in the Police Court. Some County Court Judges came to the conclusion that that was sufficient, others did not, and a great difficulty was created in the interpretation of the Section.
Under this Bill that is made infinitely worse, because the temptation to the landlord to take advantage of any fraud that will enable him to recover possession and decontrol the house is ten times stronger than it was before. Previously, unless the case was a bad one, there was little point in turning out Peter to put in Paul, but now there is all the difference in the world, because, if you turn out Peter who
was paying 10, you can put in Paul who will pay £20. Therefore, the landlords will take every advantage they can, and one cannot blame them for doing so, to use this Measure, as an instrument for recovering possession, and this Clause as it stands would enable them to do so by satisfying a County Court Judge that, not the tenant himself, but some subtenant or lodger, who was in no way under the control of the landlord, has been guilty of any of the acts mentioned in this paragraph. Of course, the draftsman of the Bill saw that difficulty, and tried to correct it by putting at the end of the paragraph words making it necessary that:
the Court is satisfied that the tenant has not, before the making or giving of the order or judgment, taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of the lodger or sub-tenant.
As the Clause stands, a landlord sues to recover possession, and this legislation comes into operation. He replies by saying, "Oh, but the lodger or sub-tenant of the man from whom I want to get possession has made himself a nuisance, or created annoyance to his neighbours." If that be true, the only reply that the tenant can give is, "I did my best, when I learned of that, to remove the subtenant." But does the House think that these poor tenants know of the method by which an obstreperous lodger or subtenant can be removed? Some may, some may not; but as the Clause is drawn it creates a great number of difficulties for the County Court Judge, and deprives the innocent tenant of any answer as regards the wrongful conduct of his lodger or subtenant, unless he is able to show that he knew the method by which to remove him and took the proper steps to do so. The words which I propose to substitute for the present provision are much shorter, more comprehensive, and, I submit, would be much easier for the County Court Judges to work. So you have it made quite clear that if you are going to deprive a tenant of the benefit that this legislation gives him, you can only do so when either he himself has been guilty of misconduct or when he knowingly permitted any other person to be guilty, and the County Court Judge, instead of being troubled by these wretched questions of police court squabbles, or what is meant by a
nuisance, or what is meant by deteriorating, simply has to ask himself this broad question, "The Legislature intended that the landlord was entitled to get back his property if the tenant was misusing it or making it an eyesore or taking advantage of his security of tenure to make himself a nuisance in the locality. In any of those cases I have to ask myself, Has the tenant himself used, or knowingly permitted the use of the premises for an immoral or illegal purpose, or is any other name reasonably calculated to seriously deteriorate the property or destroy it or annoy or disturb the adjoining occupiers? If he has, it is right that the landlord should get the return." That is the question he has to ask himself, and he can answer it without going into any of these police court questions about nuisance. My Amendment does not carry it further, but makes it more comprehensive and intelligible, and saves the County Count Judge trouble.

Mr. FOOT: I beg to second the Amendment.
I earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider seriously the acceptance of the simpler form of words. Whatever may be the view held in the House, it will be agreed that the words suggested are very much more easily capable of interpretation than the extended Clause in the Bill. I have heard County Court Judges refer to the principal Act in rather scathing terms. I heard one County Court Judge refer to it as a monkey puzzle. I am wondering what he will say about the amending Act, when he will have to adjust, by a sort of jigsaw puzzle, this new Measure side by side with the old one, and when he is asked to take paragraph (b) of this Clause, there will be raised many questions which not all the County Court Judges in the country will be able to answer. The likelihood is that there will be 20 or 30 varying interpretations, leading in the end to decisions of the High Court. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider what the possibility is when the latter words of the Clause come up for consideration? The tenant is to be deprived of his house—and here no question of alternative accommodation arises whatever—he may be deprived of the protection which these Acts were intended to give if he cannot comply with the requirements of these latter words,
"where such person is a lodger or sub-tenant the Court is satisfied that the tenant has not before the making or giving of the order or judgment taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of the lodger or sub-tenant." We will assume a tenant has a subtenant who is not on good terms with him. There is nothing more difficult in interpreting the principal Act than deciding whether a tenant has been guilty of conduct amounting to a nuisance. Judges in adjoining Courts have held entirely different opinions as to conduct that amounts to a nuisance within the meaning of the Act. I have found that magistrates in one town will hold an opinion as to what constitutes a nuisance and their opinion is in direct conflict with interpretation that is put by the County Court Judge sitting in the same town. Solicitors, in advising, have taken care to advise going before the Magistrates rather than the County Court, because the Magistrates' decision might be favourable to the landlord or much more favourable to one of the parties than is possible in County Courts. It would be almost impossible to say what steps should reasonably have been taken by the occupier of a house who has got an objectionable sub-tenant. Is it assumed that one of the steps he ought reasonably to take should be to take legal proceedings against the sub-tenant? If he goes to Court he will know very well that he is going to incur expense, very often without any real prospect of success. No solicitor is definite in advising upon these cases. Members of the profession in this House will agree that in advising upon these cases we say that nobody knows what will happen when a case is taken into Court under the ordinary Rent Restriction Act. It is a monstrous thing that the tenant should have to go to Court in order to show that he has taken every reasonable precaution, and by so doing he incurs expense when there is very little likelihood of getting a decision in his favour. Very often the sub-tenant may receive the sympathy of the magistrates or of the County Court Judge. They will need a very strong case, and it is right that it should be so, before the sub-tenant is turned into the street, especially when no alternative accommodation is provided. No tenant will know what reasonable steps he ought to take. I do
suggest that the words proposed in the Amendment are more easily understood and more easy to administer than the provision in the Act. This simpler terminology is better than the complicated Clause.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment will notice that in the wording of his paragraph the word "unless" is unnecessary, because it is already in the principal Act. The Amendment should read, to leave out from "Substituted" to the end of line 23, and to insert instead thereof:
(b) The tenant, in the opinion of the Court, has used, or knowingly permitted the use of, the premises for any immoral or illegal purposes or in any other manner reasonably calculated to seriously deteriorate the property or disturb or annoy adjoining occupiers.

Mr. HARNEY: I quite agree.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: After the scathing criticism of the wording of the Clause in the original Act which has fallen from the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) and his Seconder, it is rather interesting to see what happens when they try their 'prentice hands at drafting a new Clause. The hon. Member for South Shields began by using the word "Clause" in his Amendment, when he meant "paragraph." Had his Amendment been carried he would have wiped out all the remaining paragraphs in the original Clause. He then goes on to put in the word "unless," which is already in the Act and is quite unnecessary, and he finished off with a split infinitive. After that, I think, I may ask the House to accept the drafting, defective as it may be, of the original Act in preference to the drafting of the hon. Member's Amendment.

Mr. HARNEY: We are not schoolboys.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member wants to be free to criticise the drafting of the Bill, but no one must criticise the drafting of his Amendment. Now I come to the substantial part of the Amendment. It is admitted that the landlord is fully entitled to get rid of a tenant who has so misused the security which is given him by the Act as to allow the house to be used for illegal or immoral purposes and has deteriorated the
house or made himself a nuisance to the neighbourhood. But surely, whatever may be said about the action of the tenant who behaves in that way, the position of the landlord is even more deplorable when his house is deteriorating, when the occupants of the house make themselves a nuisance to the neighbours, not by reason of the tenant, for whom the landlord might have some responsibility, but by reason of the action of a sub-tenant who has been taken in without the consent of the landlord. Is it suggested then that the tenant should be entirely free from that responsibility in regard to the sub-tenant which the landlord has got in regard to the tenant?

Mr. HARNEY: I did not say that. The words are "knowingly permitted."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the landlord says that the sub-tenant is making himself a nuisance to the neighbours, all the tenant has got to say is that he did not knowingly permit it.

Mr. HARNEY: Quite right.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then what protection has the landlord got? How is the landlord to prove that the tenant did knowingly permit it? What has got to be proved is whether the tenant took any reasonable steps to put an end to the nuisance.

Mr. HASTINGS: This is a matter as to which the legal Members of the House may call attention to what the Clause does, so that we may know what we are asked to do. It is not a question of nuisance or immoral or illegal purposes or anything of that sort, but it is right that my right hon. Friend should know what he is doing by this Clause, and I will illustrate it by a simple example of something which happens every day. A man takes small economical premises. Frequently he shares them with a friend; that is, one man becomes the tenant and the other pays half the rent. The second man, or a member of his family, plays the piano. It is a very ordinary case, which, among persons in a more wealthy position of life, happens every day. It is not a question of nuisance, but a piano player may be an annoyance to his next door neighbours. I am very anxious not to say anything that may appear to border on the
ludicrous, but my right hon. Friend is making this possible, that some day a judge may say that what he has got to consider is whether a person of that sort constitutes himself a nuisance when he is playing the piano, and the landlord says, "I want the premises for this reason, that my tenant, whose friend is playing the piano, has not issued a writ in the High Court for an injunction restraining his friend, who is getting 40s. a week, from making a noise in the flat." My right hon. Friend may say that that is absurd, but it happens every day in the experience of members of my profession, and it is not necessary to look further than my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, who appears, at great trouble and expense, in cases of this sort, where a nuisance has been caused, and in which, on one occasion, a learned judge went himself to ascertain whether there was a nuisance or not and took a very considerable time in ascertaining the facts. Any landlord who wants to get premises has only to say that what his tenant does is an annoyance, not a nuisance.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated dissent.

Mr. HASTINGS: My right hon. Friend shakes his head. The paragraph reads:
has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance …

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. and learned Genetleman be good enough to look at the original Act? It contains the words:
and, in any such case as aforesaid, the Court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such judgment.

Mr. HASTINGS: Surely my right hon. Friend did not think that I looked at this part of the Section and not at the other? Of course it is always a "nuisance." If you put the word "nuisance" into an Act, the Judge has to find whether it is a "nuisance," which is a recognised thing, but if you deliberately put in the word "annoyance" the learned Judge would say, "I am bound to find that it is an annoyance." I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has had the advice of the Law Officers on this Clause, but does he mean to say that there is no distinction between "annoyance" and "nuisance"? The learned Judge would have to go to Stroud's
Judicial Dictionary to find out, but if he went there to find out what was an annoyance he would not find it. He would then have to go to Webster, and when a man goes to Webster we know that there is no hope anywhere. There are lawyers on both sides of the House. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend were to turn round and ask any of his legal supporters what is the meaning in law of "annoyance" they would have to go to the Library and look up Webster, and they would not be able to find out what it was. It is not fair to ask the House, without or with discussion, to pass a Clause which asks Judges of the County Court to decide what is the meaning of an "annoyance" by a tenant.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I hesitate to intervene amongst lawyers, but I am fortified by the admission of the Minister of Health that he was not a lawyer. That, however, was no excuse for the right hon. Gentleman completely ignoring the main argument used by the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment. We have a difference of opinion as to the meaning of words. Although the Law Officers of the Crown are not present, there are on the other side many distinguished legal Gentlemen. There is an hon. Member who has himself been a Judge, and there are the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) and the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst). They are quite capable of assisting the right hon. Gentleman on the point. The words that we are now asked to pass are needlessly complicated, involved and obscure:
the tenant or any person residing or lodging with him or being his sub-tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers …
"Nuisance" and "annoyance"—there is a question as to their meaning in this case
—"or allowing the premises to be used for an immoral or illegal purpose, or the condition of the dwelling-houses has, in the opinion of the Court, deteriorated owing to acts of waste by or the neglect or default of the tenant or any such person,"—
That last sentence, I submit, is not English at all.
—"and, where such person is a lodger or sub-tenant, the Court is satisfied that the tenant has not, before the making or giving of the order or judgment, taken such steps
as he ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of the lodger or sub-tenant; or.
To the ordinary lay mind, and especially to the busy man, trying to look after his property, or to carry out this Act, these words are needlessly complicated. My hon. and learned Friend's proposal is much shorter and more concise, and only one objection has been put forward to it by the Minister of Health. The words in the Amendment are:
The tenant, in the opinion of the Court, has used, or knowingly permitted the use of, the premises for any immoral or illegal purposes or in any other manner reasonably calculated to seriously deteriorate the property or disturb or annoy adjoining occupiers.
I submit that those words are much clearer and precise, and are altogether more desirable.
The only objection put forward by the Minister of Health is that the landlord had some responsibility for the tenant but no responsibility for the sub-tenant, and therefore this tenant is to have this further protection taken away from him, namely, the proof by the Court that he has knowingly committed these misdeeds. The right hon. Gentleman knows, as well as anyone, that in the abnormal times through which we have passed in the last few years, in many districts it has been absolutely necessary for the houses to be sub-let and for the tenant to take other families in order to live in them and for him to get a roof over his head at all. Without this system of sub-letting, very many families would not be housed at all, or only in tents, or under hayricks, or something of that sort. I had a case brought to my notice only on Sunday, in which a man with a wife and child—I am sorry the Chief Whip is not in his place, to bear me out in this matter—found it impossible to get anything else in London but one room. There are many people about who say that a child is a nuisance, and who object to having children in a certain class of property. They make out that the police or the night watchman object to children, who are a nuisance. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the landlord has not had the protection of being able to choose the sub-tenant. These are not normal times, and that argument far rejecting these words will not hold water. It comes to this. Do we wish to make this Bill, when it becomes law, an
Act for the protection of the tenants or subtenants, or do we wish it to be purposely filled with loopholes and means of evasions for the landlords who, as a rule, are better able to afford legal advice than the tenants? I submit that the words of my hon. Friend are for the protection of the tenant much more than the words in the Bill, and I hope, therefore, that he will press his Amendment, and that the House will support him.

Sir J. SIMON: I do not want to put any technical or lawyer's point at all, but I really think that owing perhaps to the fact that the House did not consider the provisions of the previous Clause—Clause 2—except for the purpose of dealing with one or two official Amendments, the importance of this Amendment is very easily forgotten. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the Amendment quite fairly when he seemed to think that criticisms of its exact phraseology should be put in the forefront of his objection. I dislike split infinitives as much as anybody, but there is a great deal more in this Amendment worthy of consideration. The real importance of the Amendment lies in the fact that under the Act of 1920, the landlord had power, in certain cases, to get the tenant out, but there was no great inducement to do so, unless the tenant was really and seriously objectionable. Getting the tenant out did not secure the removal of the house from control, and getting rid of one tenant only meant getting in another at the same rent. The landlord was not likely to exercise the powers given to him unless he had something substantial about which to complain. Now, the situation is quite different. Clause 2 has not been discussed, because, in the discretion of the Chair, the Amendments upon it have been passed over, but a fundamental change has been made by that Clause, and, so far as the House is concerned, it has been made sub silentio. If the landlord, by hook or crook, can get the tenant out, thereupon the house in question ceases to be controlled. That is a very big distinction, and justifies a moment's consideration, even at this late hour. It is not right, where a landlord has such a strong inducement to get rid of a tenant, that you should revise the conditions upon which he can get rid of the tenant, by making those conditions
more stringent. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend as to the difficulty of understanding what is meant by the word "nuisance." On the other hand, it might be fair to say that the word "nuisance" occurred in the Act of 1920, but I am, not grumbling at that at all. A great deal of the language in the Amendment is, as a matter of fact, the language of the old Clause with a little addition at the end. That is not the real point.
11.0 P.M.
The real point is, if you are going radically to change the law, so that if the landlord gets rid of the tenant, he gets the house freed from control and may then use it in a free market, should you not make sure you do not put it in his power to get rid of his tenant for trumpery reasons? There is a certain absurdity in laying down reasons the first of which is the annoyance of the adjoining occupier and the second is that the house is conducted for immoral and illegal purposes. I think if the seriousness of these objections be considered, one should expect the order to be different. We are not dealing, however, with mere matters of phrases. The matter is one of substance. Should we not limit the conditions upon which the landlord can get rid of the tenant now that he has such a temptation to do so? Now that he will want to strain every nerve to get the house decontrolled, that is a reason for substituting stricter words than the words in the Bill. Of course if it is the object of the promoters of the Bill to hurry on decontrol, willy-nilly, I can understand their sticking to these words, but if they really mean that they approve of control for the present but are anxious to get rid of it a soon as practicable, they should not put a new inducement before the landlord to get rid of his tenant and then say they are simply repeating the words of the Act of 1920. It seems merely a waste of time to criticise the Amendment on the ground of split infinitives and mistaken phraseology. The point is one of substance, and it is no good dealing with it as if it were not. The point is: Should not we cut down the conditions under which a landlord may get rid of his tenant, because, if he does get rid of his tenant, his house ceases to be controlled?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Hon. Members opposite are to be congratulated that the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir
J. Simon) has found them a new reason for their Clause which they never thought of before. On the other hand, he has not done the hon. and learned Member for Wallsend (Mr. Hastings) a service by pointing out that the word to which he took such great exception is, in fact, taken from the Act of 1920, and has not been the subject of any leading cases at all.

Mr. HARNEY: Hundreds of cases.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is very little in the right hon. Gentleman's contention. Incidentally, I might point out that the Amendment would do nothing to tighten up the conditions, so far as the tenant is concerned. The whole object of the Amendments which have been introduced into the Bill to the Section as it originally stood in the Act of 1920, was to bring within the purview of the original Section the case of the sub-tenant as well as that of the tenant. The whole thing is governed, as I have already pointed out, by the words that the Court has to be satisfied that it is reasonable to make an order or judgment, and whether or not they have any difficulty in deciding upon a question of annoyance or nuisance, the real crux of the situation is: Are they going to give an order or judgment? They would not give that order or judgment unless they considered it reasonable to do so.

Mr. SHINWELL: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to argue that there is not a wide difference between this proposed paragraph and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney). In the case of the former, the words read "the tenant or any person residing. … with him." I take that to mean the child of the tenant, and we have had a case arising of a child who is somewhat noisy in the middle of the night and who thus causes annoyance to the near neighbours. Are we to assume that that is a reasonable ground for ejectment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That has been in the Act since 1920.

Mr. SHINWELL: Quite, but it is none the less absurd because of that, and, in addition, as the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has pointed out, there is now an inducement to the
landlord to find any cause at all for dispossessing the tenant, on account of the accommodation thus provided. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health saw fit to criticise my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Shields because of alleged careless drafting of the Amendment, but I would ask him to note what his own Clause proposes. It reads "the tenant or any person residing …. with him," and then it goes on to say "or any such person," presumably the child of the tenant, and then we are informed, "where such person is a lodger or subtenant," which excludes the child. We have here a contradiction, amounting to a confusion, which I am certain is going to overwhelm the learned Judge when he is called upon to deal with the situation. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to criticise careless drafting. I am not concerned, however, with legal phraseology. I am much more interested in the rights of tenants, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take note of such a case as this arising, of a newly married couple obtaining possession of premises. They cause no annoyance, or we will assume so, but after a while a child comes, and annoyance immediately arises. Are we to understand, because of the annoyance arising from the coming of the child, that the landlord is going to find that a reasonable excuse for causing their ejectment? If so, what is to be the position of thousands of tenants who at the present time have only obtained the accommodation because they have no children? That is the position in London and in the provinces. Advertisements are to be observed in all the leading newspapers offering accommodation when there are no children, and, when the children come, there will be a ground for putting out the tenant. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been very careful indeed, having regard to his experience of the last few years, arising out of the 1920 Act, before he allowed this Clause to stand on the Paper. If my hon. Friends below the Gangway will forgive me for saying so, the proposed Amendment is not quite so satisfactory as at first sight appeared to be the case. I submit, if the tenant is to be penalised, the sub-tenant ought to be subject to a similar penalty. There is no provision in the Amendment to that effect.

Mr. HARNEY: The sub-tenant and the tenant both answer the description of "tenant" in this case. The tenant is a tenant of the dwelling-house, and the sub-tenant is a tenant of the dwelling-house.

Mr. SHINWELL: I must ask my hon. and learned Friend to quarrel with the Minister, because I understand the Minister to have justified his Clause in order to make the thing perfectly clear. It is not so clear as it might be, and I think the Amendment ought to have been made as clear as it ought to be with regard to the point I have made. We on this side are not going to support the Amendment, but we are quite prepared to support the omission of the words the right hon. Gentleman has moved to omit.

Mr. PRINGLE: It seems a remarkable thing that the Minister, in reply to the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) could only find as an answer to the main argument that it was an argument that had never occurred to any other hon. Member. It may be a novelty, but it is only natural that we should have novel arguments in dealing with a Bill of this kind, which is so difficult and on which we have so little time for discussion and for the purpose of framing Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman never attempted to deal with the main gravamen of the argument, which is that under this Clause numerous new grounds are being given for decontrol by the ejectment of tenants. The landlord has now a much greater inducement than before to deal with tenants in this way. The Minister spoke as if there had been no cases dealing with this question of nuisance, and annoyance before, but I am informed there have been numerous cases all over the country which have never been carried further than the County Court because the issue was not of so much importance as it will be if this Clause be passed. Now, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, every landlord will have the strongest possible inducement to obtain orders under this particular paragraph, and, if they succeed in getting them, then when they let their houses again they can charge any rent they please. There is this proviso:
Provided also that where a landlord comes into possession under an order or judgment made or given after the passing
of this Act, on the ground of non-payment of rent, the principal Act shall, notwithstanding anying in the foregoing provisions of the Sub-section, continue to apply to the dwelling-house.
But if an order be made on any other of the shadowy grounds included in the paragraph which any County Court Judge might construe as he chose, then the house can be decontrolled and the rent raised to any extent, and you are going to have a great multiplication of these cases. The landlord in the past was not going to be a penny better off, and unless his property was seriously deteriorated he was not going to take action. The landlord was not seriously worried by piano or gramophone playing.

Mr. LANSBURY: Or singing "The Red, Flag"?

Mr. PRINGLE: Or singing "The Red Flag," as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley suggests. They let these things pass. They were comparatively venial offences. Now, however, it will be a very different matter. Everything that is disagreeable will come in. If the tenant insists upon giving the Moody and Sankey's Hymns, the matter is brought before the County Court as to whether or not it is annoyance. I have known cases where it has been alleged that it was an annoyance if carried on till late in the evening. It may be a case, for example, of keeping poultry—for they are often vociferous in the early hours of the morning. I have enumerated a sufficient number of cases which might quite well come under the word "annoy." It is not sufficient to say that the word "annoy" is in the original Act. That may be perfectly true. It has not been a serious matter because there has been no inducement to strain the Law or to bring tenants unnecessarily into Court. Now there will be every inducement for the landlord, because there is the opportunity of making a profit out of this. He is given every inducement to seek to decontrol his house. Because he has this inducement there will be every effort made to use it against the tenant. For this reason I hope the House will insist upon deleting these words.

Captain BENN: This attempt to decontrol in this fashion is one of the meanest things in the Bill. There are
two ways in which the Minister thinks the housing problem can be solved. The one is by building houses, and the other by decontrolling houses, which he refuses to do by a straightforward Act of Parliament, thinking of the fate of his predecessor. Instead of saying that a house must be decontrolled at a certain date, he says that the man who has got a piano, or a gramophone, or—worse still

—and this is a real case—a family of young children, shall be the medium by which the landlord can decontrol the house.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 153.

Division No. 277]
AYES.
[11.15 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Ednam, Viscount
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lorden, John William


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Ellis, R. G.
Lorimer, H. D.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lort-Williams, J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lougher, L.


Apsley, Lord
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lumley, L. R.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Astor, Viscountess
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Falcon, Captain Michael
Manville, Edward


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Margesson, H. D. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Flanagan, W. H.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Banks, Mitchell
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Mercer, Colonel H.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Foreman, Sir Henry
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Barnston, Major Harry
Forestier-Walker, L.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Becker, Harry
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Dev'zes)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Berry, Sir George
Furness, G. J.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Garland, C. S.
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Gates, Percy
Murchison, C. K.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Nall, Major Joseph


Blundell, F. N.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Brass, Captain W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Halstead, Major D.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Paget, T. C.


Bruford, R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pease, William Edwin


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Harrison, F. C.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Harvey, Major S. E.
Penny, Frederick George


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Butcher, Sir John George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Perring, William George


Button, H. S.
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Pielou, D. P.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cassels, J. D.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Cautley, Henry Strother
Rattler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Price, E. G.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Privett, F. J.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Houfton, John Plowright
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Clarry, Reginald George
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Raine, W.


Clayton, G. C.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hughes, Collingwood
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips
Hume, G. H.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cope, Major William
Hurd, Percy A.
Remer, J. R.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Remnant, Sir James


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Rentoul, G. S.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Wells, S. R.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Weston, (Colonel John Wakefield


Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Sugden, Sir Wilfred H.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Sandon, Lord
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Winterton, Earl


Shepperson, E. W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wise, Frederick


Shipwright, Captain D.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Wolmer, Viscount


Singleton, J. E.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Skelton, A. N.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tubbs, S. W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Wallace, Captain E.



Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stanley, Lord
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Harney, E. A.
Richards, R.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hastings, Patrick
Riley, Ben


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Attlee, C. R.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Barnes, A.
Herriotts, J.
Rose, Frank H.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hill, A.
Royce, William Stapleton


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hillary, A. E.
Saklatvala, S.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. A.


Bonwick, A.
Hodge, Lieut.-Colonel J. P. (Preston)
Scrymgeour, E.


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Sexton, James


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Brotherton, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Buckie, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Burgess, S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, J. Hope


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Sitch, Charles H.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Snell, Harry


Collison, Levi
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Snowden, Philip


Darbishire, C. W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, J.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Leach, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lee, F.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Duncan, C.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dunnico, H.
Linfield, F. C.
Thornton, M.


Ede, James Chuter
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Edmonds, G.
Lunn, William
Turner, Ben


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
M'Entee, V. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
McLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fairbairn, R. R.
March, S.
Weir, L. M.


Falconer, J.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Welsh, J. C.


Foot, Isaac
Millar, J. D.
Westwood, J.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Morris, Harold
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mosley, Oswald
Whiteley, W.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Murnin, H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wintringham, Margaret


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.



Hancock, John George
Pringle, W. M. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Rae, Sir Henry N.
Mr. Phillipps and Sir A. Marshall.

Mr. BROAD: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (b).
The effect will be, if this Amendment is carried, that the provision for gaining possession for occupation by the owner of the house or a member of his family will stand as it is in the Act of 1920. I do not think it can be claimed that any case
has been made out for inserting this paragraph in the Bill. Most of us know that, instead of that Clause being loosened or extended, the power given to the owner has, in many cases, entailed great hardship on the unfortunate occupier of a house where the landlord could claim that he wanted to put in some member of his
family. I want to examine in what direction the Clause, as it is now in the Bill, is different from that in the original Act. It will be seen that, in addition to the house being reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation as a residence for himself, or for his son or daughter who is over 18 years of age, or for any person engaged in his whole-time employment, or in the whole-time employment of some tenant from him—these provisions are sufficiently extensive—there is now added in this Bill
or with whom, conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for such employment has been entered into.
There are very different circumstances under this Bill which operate as an inducement to a landlord to endeavour to get possession of his property, and I think it will be recognised that it offers a premium to a landlord to enter into an agreement or contract of service with some employé, or someone who is likely to be an employé, and such contract may be an engagement as a weekly servant. The landlord may be a small shopkeeper or master man, to whom the fact that his employé resides in any particular property is of no moment, it not being on the premises of his business or anything of that sort. It means that he can engage such a man at so much per week conditionally on his taking the house in question at a certain weekly rental, and there is no obligation that the contract shall be continued for more than a week. Having once entered into it and agreed to pay a week's wages, and having got possession of the house the unscrupulous owner—and there are such—can, by the sacrifice of one week's rent, obtain possession of a house which may mean a premium of anything from £50 to £200 owing to the fact that he has vacant possession, and that the house is free of control. He can do this, not only for an employé, but for a member of his family, and that member of his family need only occupy the house for a week, or need not occupy it at all, provided that the landlord says he wants it for such a purpose, and then, once he has satisfied the County Court judge that that is his reason for desiring possession, there is no penalty if that obligation is not carried out. He has only to satisfy the County Court judge that he requires it for such a purpose. If he does not carry out that purpose afterwards
there is nothing to say that he shall do so, and from that time the house is free from control. In the latter part of this paragraph there is a great alteration and extension in another particular. The Act of 1920 provides that the Court shall be satisfied that
alternative accommodation reasonably equivalent—
and those are the significant words—
as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available.
The new provision says
suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent, character and proximity to place of work, and is reasonably suitable to his means.
Under this provision the tenant of a small shop with a few rooms as residence attached, whose livelihood depends on that shop, the rental of which brings it within the scope of this Measure, will find that alternative accommodation suitable by reason of proximity will be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of this Bill, and will, therefore, have to satisfy the County Court judge. It is not only a question of the small shopkeeper, but of the small professional man as well. The struggling doctor will find himself in the same position, namely, that reasonable proximity will satisfy the requirements as far as housing accommodation is concerned, but it will make an essential difference to his practice. One might mention dentists also, and many another man whose business is carried on in the premises in which he resides. But I think the most abominable thing of all is the last requirement, that the alternative accommodation is not to be equivalent as far as rent is concerned but is to be suitable to his needs. If that is carried out at all it means that to retain his housing accommodation that man has got to go to court and have the most intimate affairs of his life considered, as to whether his means will enable him to pay an increased rent. Think what that will mean. The man has not only to say what his trade or calling is, and how much out of work he is, but every claim he has, because his means depend not only on his income but on his responsibilities. If that is the condition on which anyone has to satisfy the court to prevent the owner recovering possession of the house it is the most abominable inquisition we could
impose on any man that the intimate affairs of his life, the balance of his income, how he spends his money and whether he can reasonably pay the increased rent for the alternative accommodation should have to be disclosed. It means that in practically every case the alternative accommodation will be houses which have become vacant since the passing of the Act, or were vacant at the time of the Act, and a greatly increased rent will be extorted from him in his necessity. I hope the House will realise what is involved in this strange alteration and that even the Minister will realise how much is implied in it and will see that a great mistake has been made and will accept our Amendment to remove this Clause so that the old Act in that particular stands intact.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
When this Clause went upstairs it included not only a son or daughter over 18 years of age but every baby in the household as well. Under the original Clause an infant could then become possessed of a house and could in law turn out a whole family. When we debated the matter upstairs we failed to get an argument or a reason in favour of the Clause as it stood. I want to repeat one or two reasons why the House ought to reject this Clause. It is not necessary as part of the structure of the Bill. If it becomes law as amended it will mean that, in order to secure possession of a House, all that the landlord is required to do is to use his son for the purpose. He might have six sons, and for those six sons he can get six houses if he has the money to buy them. He can also get a house for his daughter, and he might have ten daughters as far as that goes. That is sixteen houses for his children. Then "any person residing with him." It need not be one person. He might keep twelve lodgers! If he has money enough and the will to do it he can, under this Clause, buy up a whole village and keep it as a family possession. Then a house can be got for an employé of the landlord. We object, above all, to this connection between the landlord and the tenant and the same landlord being the employer of the tenant, we want to destroy that once for all.
This man could also get a house for his wife, his mother, and a house for his mother-in-law. According to this Clause he could get, at least, 40 houses. He could, as stated, buy up a whole village, and if he was a good old Tory, afraid of the Socialist movement, he could clear out of the village everybody who was not on the same side as himself politically. This is one of the worst features in the Bill. I am sure that what I have suggested may be done in Birmingham. They would not do it in Manchester because they have more sense. The Minister of Healh tells the community, with great gusto, that houses will not be decontrolled until 1925; but in this Sub-section he practically decontrols houses by hundreds every week. I trust the House will object to that, and reject the Clause.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has been giving us some of the fantastic pictures with which he entertained us upstairs in Committee. He knows perfectly well that there is no suggestion of a man buying up whole villages and being able to obtain possession for all sorts of fanciful purposes, which are the figment of the hon. Member's imagination. The whole thing is governed by the words: "The Court has to be satisfied that it is reasonable to make an order." The Court would not consider it reasonable to make an order for the landlord to get possession of a house for an infant in arms, or for 40 sons and daughters, or any other ridiculous contingency which the hon. Member suggested. In every case where the landlord gets possession of a house, except when he requires it for his own occupation or for the occupation of a son or daughter over 18 years of age, he has to provide alternative accommodation. If he has to do that, where on earth is the hardship to the tenant? If he has to provide alternative accommodation, surely that is all that it is reasonable to ask the landlord to do. The fact that alternative accommodation has to be provided, except in the limited cases I have mentioned, had escaped the notice of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad). In regard to the statement that there is nothing to prevent a landlord putting in a bogus claim, and after having secured a house by misrepresentation, using it for
another purpose, there is a penalty Clause in the original Act, which has been extended by this Bill, so as to cover these cases. If a person gets possession by misrepresentation, not only does he incur penalties, but the house goes back under control. The hon. Member has made some comment on the new wording as to alternative accommodation. Everybody who is conversant with the matter must admit that the definition in the old Act was far too rigid. It meant that the landlord was unable to get possession of the house in any circumstances because it was impossible for him to find accommodation which was an exact copy of the house which the tenant was then occupying. Every hon. Member must have had great numbers of letters from people who bought houses for their own occupation or that of their children, believing that they would be able to get possession of them by the middle of this year, and finding themselves kept out of occupation very often by people who were better off than they. There is a great number of hard cases of that kind and they are at least entitled to some consideration.
In the matter of alternative accommodation we have endeavoured to specify more precisely than in the original Act the sort of considerations which should be taken into account by the Court. We have said that it must be reasonably suitable for the needs of the tenant and his family, so that that covers the case of the man with the large family who requires an equivalent number of rooms—and as regards its extent and character and proximity to the place of work. I do not think that there are any other considerations which it is necessary to take into account in the matter of alternative accommodation. The hon. Member for Edmonton roused himself to a pitch of boiling indignation because we no longer provide that the alternative accommodation should be at an equivalent rent. Why should we perpetuate, at the expense of the man who has bought the house, the existing advantage for a tenant who is able to pay a proper rent or the rent generally asked for a house of the character of that which he occupies,
just because he has been fortunate enough to get a house at a less rent. It is not unreasonable to say that, if a landlord can find a house at a higher rent, reasonably suitable for a man, that should be considered sufficient. It is absurd to suggest that this is going to be any inquisitorial research into the private affairs of a tenant. The court will have to be satisfied that the accommodation is reasonably suitable to the tenant's means, and the tenant will be able to give the court the particulars necessary to enable it to come to a decision. Most of us at one time or another have to submit to inquiries more disagreeable than that which is contemplated here. The Bill will not do any injustice to the tenant, and it will restore to the landlord a right which he is justly entitled to exercise. It would be unreasonable to go back to the words of the original Act, and I submit that the words inserted in the Bill are sufficient and reasonable.

Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman has failed to justify the substitution of the new paragraph for that which appears in the principal Act. In dealing with this matter of alternative accommodation he has fallen back, as usual, upon the hard cases—on the case of the person who has purchased a house and has not been able to obtain possession of it. But, apart from this paragraph altogether, such a person will be able to obtain possession without providing alternative accommodation. Consequently, when the right hon. Gentleman cites the hard case in relation to this matter of alternative accommodation he is citing a case which is altogether irrelevant to the paragraph under discussion. We then come to those cases in which alternative accommodation does apply, and we have to ask whether the conditions he has laid down are an improvement upon the three existing conditions or alter them for the worse. The right hon. Gentleman throws contempt on my hon. Friend regarding the phrase "is reasonably suited to his needs." Any tenant is justified in objecting to having this condition laid down. To say that the alternative accommodation should be reasonably equivalent in regard to rent is an intelligible thing. It would take into account any special circumstances with regard to the rent of the house which he was occupying and from which he was to be ejected. That,
I suppose, would be taken into account by the County Court Judge, because the word "reasonably" there appears. But when we go further and say that the rent is to be reasonably suitable, that involves an inquisition to which any tenant is entitled to object. There are many cases in which we have compulsorily to submit ourselves to an inquisition in regard to means, unfortunately, but for the first time we find here it rendered necessary for a man to submit himself in a public Court to an inquisition as to his means. After the Judge has ascertained his income, he has to pronounce whether the alternative accommodation is reasonably suitable. There may be many people who may be very well off who are living in comparatively cheap houses of limited accommodation. Why should these people, who might be able to pay a higher rent, be forced to say what their income is, and be forced to take a house at a rental which they do not desire to pay? The means of the tenant is a totally false criterion to apply. The only criterion to apply is the criterion of rent. The right hon. Gentleman has not suggested that, in regard to rent, there need be any unfairness. The words "reasonably equivalent" are included, and, if necessary, an additional provision might be brought in to apply to houses which at present, for various reasons, are let at a lower rent than they were let at in pre-War times. It would be possible to have such a provision. It would be infinitely preferable to this inquisition as to means. The provisions of this Clause seem to me to be unnecessarily complicated, and have not been justified. They make only relatively insignificant changes.

Mr. MOSLEY: The right hon Gentleman derided the suggestion of the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment as fantastic, and said that his fears for the tenant were utterly fantastic. The right hon. Gentleman always ignores the argument which has been urged throughout this Bill, that a great, new, additional incentive is now provided to the landlord to get rid of the tenant. In this paragraph which we are now discussing the landlord is provided with several new means of doing so. In fact, any landlord who is really determined to get rid of a tenant can, under these various paragraphs, and particularly this Clause, find some means
of doing so. Therefore, how can the right hon. Gentleman argue that it is so fantastic to be fearful of the position in which the tenants are placed under this Clause? The right hon. Gentleman places such implicit confidence in this governing phrase, that the Court shall only give an order if it thinks it to be reasonable. That is no safeguard whatsoever. Of course, the Court will think it reasonable, if good reasons are adduced at the time when an order is asked for, and very good reasons can easily be adduced, if a man wants the house for his son, for his daughter, or for any of the reasons specified in this Clause. But the Court has no control over what happens after the order has been given. The order may never be used for the purpose specified. The man may occupy the house for a short time, and then vacate it, and the house then becomes decontrolled, and the landlord can charge any rent he likes or sell it at any price. We can envisage under this Clause a whole host of phantom tenants being mobilised for no other purpose than the decontrol of property. This enables landlords to get their property decontrolled, and the right hon. Gentleman presents them with a method of doing it at any time they like. His only argument is that this shadowy paragraph exists which prevents the landlord from misrepresenting the facts when he appears before the Court. I put this to the right hon. Gentleman—which he has never answered—how can it be proved before the Court that at the time the order was obtained the landlord had no intention of using the house for the purposes specified? If that cannot be proved, the penalty Clause will never come into existence, and will be utterly futile. The right hon. Gentleman informed us on the Committee stage that it has never practically been utilised, and I say that this new extension of the penalty Clause will never be utilised. It is not intended to be used.
The right hon. Gentleman made great play with the question of alternative accommodation, and said that no hardship can be inflicted on the tenant because, in some cases, alternative accommodation will have to be provided. He ignored, as matters of no account, all the expenses and all the irritation that will be caused by moving from one house to another which may be far less suitable
in many respects. But let that go. In practically every case, in 99 out of 100, no alternative accommodation need be provided, because if the landlord requires the house for himself, or his children, and if he owned it before 30th June, 1922, he is under no obligation to provide alternative accommodation, and in many cases he will not be under that obligation. Even if he became the owner after 30th June, 1922, if he can prove to the Court that the greater hardship will be occasioned by refusing the order than by granting it he is under no obligation to provide alternative accommodation. Therefore, all the provision that the right hon. Gentleman makes for the provision of alternative accommodation is almost entirely irrelevant to the argument he adduced. He has certain Amendments on the paper in regard to this Clause, which have not clearly been noted, but which are of considerable substance. He proposes to strike out some of the safeguards inserted in it, and these are very material points. In Committee, a provision was inserted, which now appears in the Clause, saying that the alternative accommodation available must consist of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies. That provided the tenant was a very substantial safeguard and in some way mitigated the hardship arising from the removal from the Clause of the phrase "reasonably equivalent" as regards rent.
The right hon. Gentleman now proposes to omit that safeguard, and I think I know his reason for doing so. He has made a discovery which some of us made in the Committee, but which, in the interests of the tenant, we thought it better not to divulge. It was obvious, when the right hon. Gentleman accepted this Amendment, that, in fact, alternative accommodation never could be provided, for the simple reason that any house coming into the possession of the landlord automatically became decontrolled under the Act, and therefore there could be no alternative accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman has now made the interesting discovery that the only form of alternative accommodation which previously existed was that provided in Clause 2, where the tenant came into possession of a property previously held under a sub-tenancy. That would still be subject to the control of the principal Act. As the Act stood, as amended in
Committee, that was the only form of alternative accommodation available. The right hon. Gentleman, having made this discovery, has come down to the House with a new proposal which removes the substantial safeguards which would have gone far towards mitigating the hardships inflicted on the tenants. He has Amendments down to omit the words "A dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies, and to insert the words
either of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies, or of premises to be let as a separate dwelling on terms which will afford the tenant security of tenure reasonably equivalent to the security offered by the principal Act.
That alternative accommodation is not now subject to control, and the right hon. Gentleman has reversed the decision of the Committee. We are now in the position that the alternative accommodation provided has not to be subject to the principal Act, and has not to be equivalent as regards rent, and the only provision is that it should be suitable to the tenant's means. The unfortunate tenant's only remedy is to go into Court and submit himself to a public inquisition into his sources of income and emolument, and to try to prove upon some basis, not laid down, that the alternative accommodation is suitable to his means. How is the Judge to decide what rent is suitable to a man's means? Is he to take the customary calculation of one-seventh of the man's income? Is a different basis to be taken in each different County Court? No guidance of any sort is afforded to the Judges in connection with difficult and intricate problems of this nature. This Clause, as it will stand with the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman, is considerably more vicious than when it left the Committee. In fact, it provides a means by which the landlord can secure decontrol of his property without the provision in most cases of any alternative accommodation at all, and in a few remaining cases, of alternative accommodation at prohibitive rates. The right hon. Gentleman is carrying out, by surreptitious and subterranean methods, a Measure on which he has set his heart, which removed his predecessor from office and which set the whole Government in a state of panic, and not having the courage openly to carry a Measure of
decontrol, he is out to do so by these subterranean means.

12 M.

Mr. HARNEY: I am a little puzzled as to the construction of this Clause. As the Clause stands, the alternative accommodation is to consist of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies, and which is reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant and his family as regards extent, character, etc. That is a long way of saying it is to be a controlled dwelling-house. It is impossible, having regard to the method upon which the Bill is drafted, for any landlord to be able to show in the case of any tenant whom he is about to dispossess, that he can find accommodation in the sense that is required, because the only possible accommodation would be in some sort of vacant house, and that vacant house is a decontrolled house. I have just learned that there are two or three Amendments proposed by which the Minister, probably this time without the assistance of the Law Officers, off his own bat has endeavoured to meet the legal difficulty, because he proposes apparently to say that the alternative accommodation shall not necessarily consist of a decontrolled house, because that cannot be found, but that it shall consist of a house that, as regards tenure, is to be put in the same position as a controlled house. The only way in which you can put a decontrolled house in the same position as regards tenure as a controlled house, is by some special provision to this effect. The tenant going in is to be told, "You shall stay there for such term as you would be entitled to stay there, and be evicted only on such conditions as you could be evicted, if this were a controlled house. "There is the position to which the right hon. Gentleman has reduced the working of this Bill, and I hope he will deal with this criticism instead of finding fault, as he did on my previous Amendment, with my Irish bad grammar.
Several hon. Members evidently understand the effect of this paragraph (d) and paragraph (iv) as meaning this, that in the case of all houses up till June, 1922, it is not necessary for the landlord to show alternative accommodation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into it, for if that be his intention, the words do not say it. The governing paragraphis
is (d), which says, "The dwelling-house," etc., and it then goes on to say,
unless the court is satisfied that alternative accommodation is available consisting of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies.
Therefore, if it is still there in every case, it would have been necessary for the landlord to find alternative accommodation. Then you see in paragraph (iv) that it will be unnecessary for the landlord to do what otherwise would be necessary, namely, to find alternative accommodation in the case of property that he acquires after June, 1922, so that as it stands it means that in all cases prior to June, 1922, the landlord must show alternative accommodation; in all cases after June, 1922, it will be necessary to deal with the question only on the ground of greater hardship. I do not know if that be what the right hon. Gentleman intends. If so, all that I can say is that why he should have such an intention is a complete puzzle to me and to everybody else, because all the speakers have dealt with it as if it meant quite the other way round.
With reference to the Clause itself, if the real intention of the Government had been at once to decontrol, if they had departed from the policy which was initiated in 1915 and had said, "That is wrong, and we will now scrap it," and had taken the consequences before the country, no one would have had any objection. They either would have got the country or lost it—probably lost it—and having come to the conclusion that they probably would lose the votes of the people if they spoke straight out, they have had recourse to Clauses like this, to do under a camouflage what they dared not do openly, because it is impossible for anyone familiar with the working of our Courts to come to any other conclusion than this, that such a Clause as this will enable landlords to drive a coach and four through any system of control whatever. May I emphasise what the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said? Even if the Clauses by which the landlord could obtain possession were identical under this Bill with what they were under the existing Act, the position would be wholly different, because under the existing Act the landlord had no temptation to put out his tenant in order to put in another tenant who would pay only the same rent, but now the position is that you say to a
landlord: "Here are a score of ways of which, either genuinely or dishonestly, you can avail yourself, not merely to put out a tenant, but to put in one who would pay you an infinitely higher rent," and having in Clause 2 given that power and provided that temptation to the landlord, they then arm him with a large number of Clauses that bear on every line of them invitations to the landlord to seek to take advantage of them to break down the control that is ostensibly being maintained.
Under the old Act a landlord could not get rid of a tenant except he was able to show that he wanted the controlled house for himself. Now he is able to get an uncontrolled house by proving that he requires it for a child, for a person bona fide residing with him, for an employé of his or of a tenant of his, and, worse still, for a person whom he thinks he will employ or whom he thinks his tenant will employ. We are told then that there is this great safeguard at the end of the Clause, which says: "If, landlord, you take advantage of any of these methods of obtaining back your house, and it is found afterwards that you threw dust into the eyes of the County Court Judge, I will make you pay compensation, and will undo all that you so cleverly did." That is a safeguard; and I would like an answer to this question: Suppose a landlord says to his child, "You would like to have a house, would you not?" and the child replies, "Of course, daddy." "Then," says the father, "let us go before the County Court Judge and say we want it, and that you are over 18." Both are quite truthful. There is no misrepresentation at the moment. They get the order. Tell me what, in this Bill, will prevent the son the very next day going into

the market and selling that decontrolled house, and giving the money to his father? If the son can do that—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member, like some who have preceded him, has been harking back to a new Clause disposed of earlier in the day, which dealt with the very point that he is now putting before the House. He must not really go back when the matter has been disposed of.

Mr. HARNEY: I was not here, Sir, but I accept that ruling. There is, may I explain, this further provision: the man may want the house for some person whom he wishes to engage, or that the tenant wishes to engage. That may be quite true when they appear before the County Court judge and get the order. But what obligation is there on the person whom the landlord says he wants it for to take it? Can the landlord be blamed for misrepresentation if he is able to say afterwards, "Well, the person for whom I wanted it did not really want it himself. I was going to engage him and thought he wanted it. I find out now he does not." Will he be allowed to keep possession of the house? I could give numerous illustrations all tending in the same direction. I will, therefore, vote against the entire deletion of this Clause as being one of many designed not really for the purpose of continuing control but as one devised with the object of undermining the position.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word consisting' ["consisting of a dwelling-house"], stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 109.

Division No. 278.]
AYES.
[12.15 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Blundell, F. N.
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Clarry, Reginald George


Apsley, Lord
Brass, Captain W.
Clayton, G. C.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Cope, Major William


Barnston, Major Harry
Bruford, R.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page


Becker, Harry
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Butcher, Sir John George
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Betterton, Henry B.
Button, H. S.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
Hume, G. H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Doyle, N. Grattan
Hurd, Percy A.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remer, J. R.


Ednam, Viscount
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rentoul, G. S.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Ellis, R. G.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lort-Williams, J.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Flanagan, W. H.
Lougher, L.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Sandon, Lord


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lumley, L. R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Manville, Edward
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Furness, G. J.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Shipwright, Captain D.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Singleton, J. E.


Garland, C. S.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Skelton, A. N.


Gates, Percy
Morloy, Major L. G. S.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)
Stanley, Lord


Greaves-Lord, Walter
Murchison, C. K.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Nall, Major Joseph
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Halstead, Major D.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Tubbs, S. W.


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Paget, T. G.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Wallace, Captain E.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pease, William Edwin
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Harrison, F. C.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Wells, S. R.


Harvey, Major S. E.
Penny, Frederick George
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Perring, William George
Winterton, Earl


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pielou, D. P.
Wise, Frederick


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wolmer, Viscount


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Price, E. G.



Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Privett, F. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Houfton, John Plowright
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Raine, W.



Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Linfield, F. C.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, T.
Lunn, William


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grundy, T. W.
M'Entee, V. L.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
McLaren, Andrew


Barnes, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
March, S.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hardie, George D.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Harney, E. A.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Bonwick, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Briant, Frank
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Mosley, Oswald


Broad, F. A.
Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Newbold, J. T. W.


Buckie, J.
Herriotts, J.
O'Grady, Captain James


Burgess, S.
Hill, A.
Oliver, George Harold


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Hirst, G. H.
Paling, W.


Chapple, W. A.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Phillipps, Vivian


Collison, Levi
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.


Darbishire, C. W.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Richards, R.


Dunnico, H.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ede, James Chuter
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Riley, Ben


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Ritson, J.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Lansbury, George
Rose, Frank H.


Foot, Isaac
Lawson, John James
Saklatvala, S.


Gosling, Harry
Leach, W.
Salter, Dr. A.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lee, F.
Scrymgeour, E.




Sexton, James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Trevelyan, C. P.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Turner, Ben
Whiteley, W.


Simpson, J. Hope
Warne, G. H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sitch, Charles H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.


Snell, Harry
Weir, L. M.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Sullivan, J.
Welsh, J. C.



Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Westwood J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Ammon and Mr. Morgan Jones.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), substituted paragraph (d), to leave out the words
consisting of a dwelling-house to which the principal act applies, and.
This is the first of three Amendments, which I think may be taken together. They consist partly of a redrafting and partly of the addition of a new form of words to provide some additional alternative accommodation. There is an idea that I am trying to reverse the general decision of the Committee, but that is not so. The only reason for leaving out these words is to get a better drafting of the Clause.

Sir J. SIMON: I am not quite sure as to whether we have to say what we have to say about all the three Amendments now or as they are put from the Chair, but I want to say something about the third Amendment. I think the point is deserving of a few moments' attention, because the paragraph, as thus amended, would provide that the alternative accommodation is to consist of a dwelling house, to which the principal Act applies. I quite see that the right hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that he must delete the words he proposes to delete, but I should like him to tell the House to what extent, when this Bill becomes an Act, he anticipates that there can be in fact alternative accommodation to which the principal Act applies. I should have thought that, since the new Act will be an Act securing that the principal Act ceases to apply when a landlord gets actual possession, the cases in which that form of alternative accommodation is available would be very few. I can conceive that there might be such a case if it happened that it was possible to have a transfer of tenancy without any intermediate actual possession by the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman explained earlier how he thought that very rare case might arise, though I do not myself appreciate how there can ever be alternative accommodation to which the principal Act applies. It must, of course, be vacant,
or you could not put a dispossessed tenant into it; and yet at the same time it must remain accommodation to which the Act applies. I think the right hon. Gentleman thought that if the landlord got possession of the key there would be actual possession, and then the house would be decontrolled, but I do not myself quite see when that condition could be fulfilled. The alternative condition which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to put in is that the alternative accommodation shall consist of
premises to be let as a separate dwelling on terms which will afford to the tenant security of tenure reasonably equivalent to the security afforded by the principal Act.
I should be very much obliged if he would expand these words by a little explanation, for I do not quite understand what they mean. What is the security of tenure which will exist, apart from an Act of this sort, which is reasonably equivalent to a provision of the law that you cannot be removed from your tenancy, but can stay on indefinitely, as long as you pay your rent and behave yourself? I do not see what this Amendment is intended to do. I was not a member of the Committee, and so I do not know, but it looks very much as though, during the Committee stage, when this alternative paragraph (b) was under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman for the moment thought he could accept an Amendment which would secure, at any rate, that, when the landlord turned his tenant out, the tenant should get some alternative accommodation which would be governed by rent restriction, but as though, on reflection, the Government have seen that they cannot do that. If that be the case, a very vital change is being made in the practical effect of the Bill, because it nearly means that if the Landlord comes forward and says he wants the house for his son, or his daughter, or his servant, or any person living within his gates, and if he satisfies the County Court Judge that he is making a genuine and fair claim, thereupon the alternative accom-
modation is not going to be accommodation subject to a controlled rent at all, and the justification for it is to be ascertained, apparently, by inquiry as to how much the tenant's private means enable him to pay.

Mr. MOSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has said that this Amendment does not reverse the decision of the Committee. I venture to contend, in the absence of more argument, that it does. I believe that the submission put forward by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) is correct and that the Minister of Health, in the excitement and heat of the moment, accepted the Amendment which he afterwards discovered largely stultified his Bill. He accepted another Amendment saying that the alternative accommodation available should consist of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act shall apply, and then he found that it would be difficult for the tenant to be evicted and he, therefore, proposed these new words. He says that if a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies is not available there shall be a proviso affording security of tenure, but that may be a house which is not subject to the principal Act. It is a house which is not decontrolled as to rent and the tenant is not provided with the statutory security against eviction. The right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to explain what is meant by security against eviction. He does not give any statutory protection. Therefore, I venture to say I was correct when I contended that the right hon. Gentleman has reversed the decision of the Committee, unless he is able to explain this in rather more detail. Apart from his customary frankness, he ignores altogether the arguments from the other side of the House and relies on his mechanical majority. We can only believe that the contentions we have submitted are correct. So far as I can understand it he has absolutely refused to meet this argument. Will he therefore explain to us why he says the decision of the Committee was not reversed, particularly in view of the legal considerations which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley has adduced.

Captain W. BENN: It is really essential that we should have some further explanation. This is a very complicated
point and it is a great misfortune we should be discussing it at half-past 12 in the morning. Three years ago the same thing was done and it gave an infinite amount of trouble and the legislation had to be scrapped. If it be necessary to provide alternative accommodation, that accommodation might be alternative accommodation at competitive prices. In Committee the Minister accepted an Amendment which, I admit, when I saw it seemed to me a great concession indeed, because he said we shall not get rid of a man unless we find him a place as secure as he was before. Now we find, in point of fact, that he cannot have that Amendment because there is no such accommodation in existence. The Minister now attempts to meet this by putting in the old words—
consisting of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies,
knowing that no such house is available. Will the Minister say that this part of the proviso is ever going to be used? Can he site the case of any alternative accommodation to which the Act would apply, because if it is vacant according to Clause 2 it is decontrolled? Then as to the second part, it is not strange that I should say it does not convey any clear meaning to my mind, but I am informed by legal authorities that it is not clear. Surely it is dangerous to put in a proviso that is a makeshift. What does it say?
or of premises to be let as a separate dwelling on terms which will afford to the tenant security of tenure reasonably equivalent to the security afforded by the principal Act.
This Bill reduces security of tenure under the old Act and gives greater security of tenure according to the same paradoxical proviso, for a man who is evicted under this Bill is put back into a house in which he has greater security than he enjoyed. If accommodation is wanted for the landlord's children or other members of his family, he will have to find the tenant other accommodation of greater security than he had. My point of criticism is that this whole paragraph ought to go. The Minister based the whole of the case for this Clause on the case of a man who bought a house and desired to occupy it and could not obtain possession. That man is not dealt with in paragraph (iv). The gist of my argument is that this is merely another device to assist the landlord to decontrol in the interests of higher rents. The best
thing that can happen to this paragraph is that it should disappear entirely from the Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I desire, of course, in response to the requests which have been made, to give some explanation of the second part or rather the third part of the Amendment. It is a little difficult to know when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are putting a case for the tenant and a case for the landlord.

Mr. MOSLEY: What does it matter? We want to know what it means.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will tell the hon. Member what it means if he will allow me. It prejudices the landlord and not the tenant, and much of the criticism of this particular Amendment appears to be on the ground that there is not provided sufficient accommodation. However that may be, let me say, first of all, that I did not accept the Amendment as suggested by hon. Members opposite. I put the Amendment down myself that the alternative accommodation should consist of a house that was a controlled house. The reason was that it appeared to me that if a decontrolled house was offered to the outgoing tenant which was reasonably similar to the house he had been occupying in the various methods specified in the Bill that might satisfy the Court, but as the house was decontrolled he could be got rid of at any moment and that did not seem to me to be a matter to be ignored and I put an Amendment down. As often happens, one puts something down when one sees the particular facet of the case and then you find a fresh difficulty has been created, and that was the case with this Amendment. I saw that the accommodation available would only be houses which were still subject to the Act and that there would be very little accommodation available. It is not quite correct to say no accommodation, because it will be observed that in the proviso to Clause 2, Sub-section (1) where a landlord gets possession on the ground of non-payment of rent then the principal Act shall continue to apply all the same. Therefore that class of house will be available but the accommodation will probably be very limited, and I much desire to give a larger field of choice to the landlord to provide alternative accommodation. I tried to do that by other devices which
have been criticised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn). If he says that the security afforded by the principal Act is greater than the security afforded by this Bill and desires to alter the words accordingly, I am quite prepared to consider that. Now I am asked what does that mean. It is very simple. Under the principal Act, which comes to an end in 1925, the tenant is secure in his tenure until that date. Therefore if the landlord who has to provide alternative accommodation can arrange that he has a valid contract to continue his tenancy of the house until 1925, he will, notwithstanding the fact that it is a decontrolled house, have the same security as if it had been a controlled house.

Mr. T. THOMSON: There is one vital point which the Minister has not explained. He seeks to leave out of his Amendment—an Amendment which he put down in Committee in deference to other Amendments which were then withdrawn—that protection to the tenant which provides that the house shall be reasonably suitable to his means.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It comes in again. It is only a matter of drafting.

Mr. THOMSON: It says
on terms which will afford to the tenant security of tenure reasonably equivalent to the security afforded by the principal Act.
I see no reference there to means. These Amendments and re-Amendments are to laymen, and possibly to lawyers, a little misleading. I only want to make sure that the tenant's security is the same. How he is going to enforce that security is not clear. If he can explain this, he has to a certain extent met the objection that has been urged.

Captain BERKELEY: The only ground for congratulation which the House can afford itself on this Amendment is that, coming from the quarter from which it came, it does not afford the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of displaying the spurious erudition he displayed in the last. He had no split infinitive to fall back on in this case. When I endeavoured to follow the case he made, I have not found it satisfactory. I have done my best to follow it, but I have not been able to do so. The matter on which I would like the hon. Gentleman to afford us some word of explanation is the meaning of the
words "or premises to be let as a separate dwelling." Is a flat a separate dwelling? If it is, is a maisonette a separate dwelling? If a maisonette is, then are two or three rooms partitioned off a separate dwelling? Under the original Act similar accommodation had to be provided. In the Amendment as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, will the accommodation be really and effectively similar to that which has been taken out of control?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1, b), substituted paragraph (d), after the word "to" ["suitable to the needs"], insert the words "the means of the tenant, and to."

Leave out the words "is reasonably suitable to his means," and insert instead thereof the words
which consists either of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies or of premises to be let as a separate dwelling on terms which will afford to the tenant security of tenure reasonably equivalent to the security afforded by the principal Act."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Sir P. PILDITCH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, d), to leave out the word "paragraph" ["the following paragraph"], and to insert instead thereof the word "paragraphs."
The reason for the change from the singular to the plural is to provide a proper place for the accommodation of the new paragraph standing in my name.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, d), paragraph (h), to insert a new paragraph—
(i) the dwelling-house consists of or includes premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, and the tenant has committed an offence as holder of the licence or has not conducted the business to the satisfaction of the licensing justices or the police authority, or has carried it on in a manner detrimental to the public interest, or the renewal of the licence has for any reason been refused.
This paragraph, which has been agreed between the parties concerned, takes the place of the Clause omitted at a previous stage of the discussion. It was explained incidentally when the omission was first mentioned.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add the words
or the owner of the premises desires not to renew the licence.
This is supposed to be an agreed Amendment. I can quite understand that the persons interested in the trade may have arranged their affairs between themselves, but there is a further interest which I do not think has been sufficiently considered, and this is, after all, an Amendment which the Minister has rather left to be arranged between the parties. If this Amendment be carried, it will be within the power of the owner to determine whether the sale of intoxicating liquor in these premises is to be carried on, and he has the last word on that. This is not merely a question about rent, nor of a greedy owner trying to get the tenant out, because if the owner drops the licence it is quite certain he will not get the highest rent. I do not think in such cases the tenant ought to be affected, but if the owner wishes to drop the licence, I think he ought to be in a position to do so. If the Amendment passes as it stands on the Order Paper, in that case it will be for the tenant, the licensee, to make it impossible for anyone to stop the sale of intoxicating liquor on those particular premises. It is the licensee or tenant who holds the licence and he cannot be turned out. Under this Amendment it would be for him to go before the Justices at the end of his year's licence and simply ask for a renewal. The owner could not stop him. There are cases where it might be right for the owner to be in a position to stop a licence if he wishes. There is the common case in which you get a firm of brewers who are owners and are willing to surrender two or three licences to get another licence in another part of the town. That kind of bargaining often takes place and that kind of bargaining could not be carried out if this Amendment passes into law. It would be open to the licence-holder to say, "I am not going to surrender." Take the case of the private owner who wishes to suppress a licence in a particular district. I do not see why he should not be able to do so if he wants to. It may be for the benefit of the neighbourhood.
There is a considerable number of these licences just dropped every year without
any compensation at all. I do not quite see why that should be stopped. The Report of the Onslow Committee suggests that in the case of these public-houses that they should be outside of it altogether. What the House has determined is that these houses should be liable to decontrol in certain specific cases. I ask the Minister whether this particular case is a point not worth considering. If he could accept the addition of these words I should be glad; if not, will he consider the matter further at a later stage. My Amendment is not on the Notice Paper, but I did not know the Minister was going to accept this Amendment.

Mr. ACLAND: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I cannot see how we can accept this Amendment. It is entirely beyond the scope of my Amendment, which makes specific provision for premises to be decontrolled in the case of certain definite offences being committed by the tenant. Under these circumstances it is made possible for the property to be decontrolled. As I understand the hon. Member's Amendment, it is of quite a different character. He adds the case of one of the parties not desiring to renew the licence. That is quite a different kind of thing to the kind of thing contemplated under my Amendment. I do not know what the effect of it would be, and it does seem a question which ought to be considered before it is placed in this Amendment. Not knowing how far the hon. Member's Amendment would carry us, and as it appears on the surface to be of a one-sided character, I could not be a party to accepting it.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: I am not sure if I understand the Amendment to the Amendment, and whether other hon. Members understand it. So far as the Amendment is concerned, it is one I was most anxious to support, because I understand it does not desire to place the licence-tenants in a worse position than other tenants. As I have stated previously in this House, I am always anxious to put the tenants of licensed premises in a rather better position than they are with regard to their landlords, because in the present state of the licensing law it is in the interests of the com-
munity that the tenant should be put in a sound and strong position. As I understand it, and I have not had an opportunity of seeing the Amendment, the Amendment now proposed to the Amendment is to deal with what is, after all, a very few cases of licensed premises in respect of which a landlord, for some reason or other, desires either with or without compensation to abandon the licence. As I understand, the position under the Amendment, if the Amendment were added to it, would be that if the magistrates, or the licensing justices, consider under the Act of 1910 that the premises were premises redundant in the district from which they would have been entitled to take away the licence on paying such compensation as was due—in that case no injury would be done from the temperance standpoint in carrying the Amendment—but there is the conceivable point which I do not think applies in any but a very few cases of licensed premises where the licensing justices do not take the licence away, but the landlord does, and I would point out that if the landlord abandons a licence which would not come under the redundancy class without the consent of the tenant a very grave injustice is done to the tenant. If the house is redundant it is up to the licensing interest to take action, in which case the tenant gets such compensation, inadequate I believe for him under the Licensing Act.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: Are we not to have something from the Minister?

Captain W. BENN: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman reply? The Amendment was moved in temperate language.

1.0 A.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I really do not think I am called upon to reply, as the Amendment moved is not an Amendment of mine. I explained I would accept the main Amendment on the understanding that it was agreed. If further Amendments are moved, it is no longer agreed. What I would suggest is that, as my hon. Friend is not authorised and therefore cannot accept the Amendment now—and it is only a manuscript Amendment of which I have not even a copy—the Mover should consult with my hon. Friend between now and the time that this Bill goes to another place, and if he can then get further
agreement on his suggested Amendment, I should be quite prepared to consider it.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: Do I understand that there is absolutely no consideration here for the interests of the public on a matter of this kind, provided the brewers and the tenants—

Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order. The hon. Member has no right to speak again.

Captain W. BENN: Has not the Mover of an Amendment on the Report stage the right to speak more than once?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I did not understand that the hon. Member wanted to say anything more.

Mr. ACLAND: I am bound to say, having listened to the discussion on this matter, that I am a little surprised at the detached attitude the Government have taken. They ought to have a view either that they would be willing to consider this matter themselves and not leave it wholly to the negotiation of private Members of this House. It seems to me that my hon. Friend's point contains some substance and his explanation was quite natural, that he did not know that the Amendment was going to be favourably considered. But on this matter, even at this late hour, we are entitled to the assurance, on behalf of the Government, that they will look into this matter and not leave it to my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment to express his willingness or unwillingness to make arrangements with my hon. Friend or not. That leaves it in this position. If my hon. Friend opposite simply says. "No, I am not instructed to accept this, this is as far as the parties agree," then my right hon. Friend's Amendment, which, when looked into, may be found to have substance in it, cannot be embodied in the Bill.

Mr. FOOT: There is one part of the wording that is somewhat difficult for me to understand. It may be that my difficulty is shared by other Members of the House. Towards the end of the Amendment, as moved by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch), you read the words in the last line:
or the renewal of the licence has for any reason been refused.
Are we to understand from these words that if the licence has been refused—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think we must dispose of one Amendment first.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: With great respect, it would be very unfair for us to go to a Division on this point, which has been present to us in manuscript form. I do not desire to say anything at any length, but it is rather unfair at this hour that we should be asked to pass judgment on a manuscript Amendment, which, possibly, may have a wide effect upon holders of licensed premises. I only want to see justice done. I hope it will not be pressed now, but that the suggestion of the Minister of Health will be accepted, that if there is anything really effective in the Amendment they will discuss it with the Mover of the main Amendment before the Bill goes to another place.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. FOOT: May I be allowed to rut the question I was putting a moment or two ago? I am anxious to know what is the effect of the latter part of the Amendment, which I understand is an agreed Amendment, arrived at after consultation by the interests concerned. If hon. Members will turn to the last words of this Amendment they will read "or the renewal of the licence has for any reason been refused." Supposing a licence is refused simply on the ground of redundancy.

Mr. HOHLER: Not refused, but referred for compensation.

Mr. FOOT: I can quite understand that if the tenant of licensed premises misbehaves himself or jeopardises the licence belonging to the owners of the property, that there ought to be some ample safeguard given to them. That is a fair proposition. But I do not see what is, the meaning of the words at the end of the Amendment. We have provided is it for a breach or for misconduct on the part of the licensee, but what do those last words mean, because if there is no misconduct on the part of the licensee I do not see why he should be deprived of the provisions of the Act. The licensee in that case ought not to be turned into
the street. He surely ought to be in no worse position than any other tenant in the neighbourhood in which he lives. There must be, I should imagine, seeing that these words have been subject to consultation, some meaning in these last words, and I should like to know what that meaning is before I am asked to give a vote upon it.

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: It seems to me, possibly, that they contain the suggestion of the Amendment to the Amendment that was proposed by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts). In the case which he contemplates, the tenant would apply for a license which would be refused on the ground that the landlord did not wish to press for it. In that case, would not the refusal come under the last Clause of the Amendment?

Sir P. PILDITCH: No, it would not; I do not think so.

Mr. PRINGLE: The House should be informed exactly what is contemplated in the words to which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) has asked a question. The words as they stand are somewhat obscure. The Minister takes no responsibility for this Amendment; he accepts it simply as an agreed Amendment, agreed to without consideration, and apparently he has no concern whether it is properly drafted or not. An appeal has been made to the hon. Gentleman opposite who has moved the Amendment as to what these words are intended to cover, and no answer has been given. I understand that the Mover of an Amendment has always the right to address the House on the Report stage for the purpose of clearing up what is contained in his Amendment, and I hope that before the House passes to a Division the hon. Gentleman will give some explanation.

Sir P. PILDITCH: The words in question met with the entire approval of those for whom the hon. Member has been speaking and those interested in this Clause, that is to say, the licensed victuallers. As I understand the matter, if the renewal of the licence has for any reason been refused, the last words of the Clause really cover the five or six different cases given in the early part of the Clause representing the kind of offence which the tenant may have committed, and in re-
spect of which the licence has not been renewed. There are five or six of them stated definitely, and these words at the end are words which might include any other offences not specified in the earlier part of the Clause. I shall take my stand as the Mover of this Amendment on the fact that the two sets of parties are in agreement. I was interested in this matter in Committee when it was discussed between those who represented the owners and those who represented the tenants. They met together and drew up this Clause. None of the parties disagreed with the Clause. The matter was gone into carefully, and was submitted to the Minister so that he might see whether it also coincided with the interest of the public, and they all agreed with this Clause. We all wish to do justice to the tenant without serious injury to the owner.

Sir J. SIMON: Surely the House of Commons cannot accept an assurance without understanding what it means. The House of Commons has no business to do justice blindfold. We desire to do what is fair and right, but it must be responsible for what it does. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) has told us with tranquillity that he cannot suggest any meaning to the words as to the renewal of the licence if refused, and he suggests as a sort of sweep-up or redundancy that it does not add anything at all. We have the advantage of the presence of a gentleman who knows a lot about this subject, and I seriously suggest that, even though the hour be late and it is thundering and lightning, there is no justification whatever for the House of Commons to pass into the Bill a Clause which he is not prepared to expound phrase by phrase, and in which the Government does not give the slightest assistance.

Mr. J. JONES: I have heard a good deal about tenants and landlords and the interests concerned, but there are cases where there are managers and no tenants, people who are employed as managers in a public house, and in some towns in Great Britain, particularly the city which the Minister happens to represent, people have been turned out into the streets with a week's money. In the city in which I happened to reside originally the same thing happened. A brewer holds the
monopoly of most of the public houses. The—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's remarks would be relevant to this Amendment, as this Clause deals only with houses where there is a "tenant," and so designated.

Mr. J. JONES: I want to point out that in the majority of cases these people are employed by the week as managers, and they can be turned out in the streets, and they have no home. I want to know how they are going to have the ordinary guarantee under this Clause.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: They will not be affected by this Amendment one way or the other.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: I do not agree with the reasons the hon. Member has given for this Amendment, but I hope I may acquire some merit in his eyes by saying that these words are quite right. I am able to agree with the Amendment and give it my partial support, and I hope when he comes to consider my Amendment further on he will look upon it with more sympathetic eyes.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: I also join in dissenting strongly from the last words proposed in this Amendment. They are by no means as they were in Committee. It is quite true that all that has been said is correct in so far as the invitation to the parties is concerned, but those of us who spoke to the Amendment in the Committee stage have not heard a word with regard to the approval of the, shall I say, corporate bodies who own the houses or the tenants who occupy the licensed premises. I dissent very strongly from the explanation given as to the last words. These words incorporate in this Bill the very objections which were raised in Committee. We pointed out that the magistrate already had power, and I have no objection at all to the first part of the Amendment being added to the Bill, but I would ask the House and the Minister not to put in the last words of the Amendment, because if that is done it does not meet the position made by us in Committee. Therefore I move to leave out the last words.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is too late to do that. We cannot go back to the body of the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: This Amendment does not carry out the promise made in Committee that no injustice would be inflicted on these tenants through any reason, and I protest against it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I only desire to offer two observations to the House. First, all I said upstairs was that if a Clause could be agreed as satisfactory by the two parties who are most interested in it, namely, the brewers on the one side and the licensed victuallers on the other, and if, when that Clause was presented to me, I did not see anything in it which was against the public interest, I would accept it. That Clause has fulfilled these two conditions, and I cannot see what objection the hon. Member for Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) takes to the Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The Smith Wales district never were consulted and had not an opportunity of seeing the Clause before it was put on the Paper.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The body that came to me was entitled to speak for the whole of the trade.

Mr. F. GRAY: For London only.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: For the London district only.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) repeated an observation which is not quite accurate, let me put him right. There is no question here of decontrol. The Sub-section which originally appeared in the Bill as part of Clause 2, would, it is true, make the house come out of control altogether. That has been dropped, and this Amendment is moved to Clause 3, which does not deal with houses coming out of control at all, but with cases in which possession of the house can be obtained.

Mr. A. SHAW: The House will agree with what the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said. We are always more than willing to give effect to any agreement. That is one thing. But having fired at our head a hole and corner agreement, which only covers a small part of the country, is a very different thing.

Sir P. PILDITCH: The body which on the part of the licensees drew this up, in consultation with the brewers, is the National Consultative Council of Licensed Victuallers, who represent the whole country.

Mr. A. SHAW: There is grave difference of opinion about this proposal among eminent lawyers whose advice people pay large sums of money to have, and whose advice we have had to-night. The hon. Member's course would be to withdraw the Amendment, so that the Government might reconsider the matter in view of what has passed here to-night. I cannot accept the theory put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that when the Government accept an Amendment and make it their own, they do so with some less measure of responsibility than if they had moved the Amendment themselves. It appears entirely unsound in constitutional and Parliamentary theory. As there appears to be no consensus ad idem among those supporting the Amendment and a general measure of misapprehension and confusion about it, the proper course would be that the Amendment should be negatived and, if necessary, inserted in another place.

Mr. FAIRBAIRN: I only rise as one not acquainted with the practice of the House to offer a protest against any agreement being carried through without the Members of the Committee being consulted. I did not sit on the Committee on behalf of any association, but for my constituency. If bargains are arrived at in the House, they ought to be arrived at between Members of the House of Commons and not through interested parties on one side or the other through some particular set of gentlemen in the House. Before the House is asked to enforce agreemnts the Government or the Minister in charge of the Bill should be quite sure that the agreement is arrived at between Members who took up the matter in Committee and not by two sets of a particular trade. It is teaching young Members a wrong view of what the House of Commons should do if hon. Gentlemen who have been here for years lead the House into what has been a very unprofitable discussion, and one that has led to a great deal of confusion, a discussion that need not have arisen if the members of all parties in the House had
been consulted at this conference. Having made this protest, I hope the House will not reject the Clause unless we have an assurance from the Government that the matter will be dealt with later. I should not like to injure the interests of these people.

Mr. EDE: Although we have been discussing this matter as if it were merely a case between the brewer and the tenant of a public-house, the Clause as drafted goes far wider than that, and it refers to any building of which any part is used for licensed premises. It includes all those premises that are licensed for grocers' licences throughout the country. I understood that one of the things that was to be borne in mind when the agreed Amendment was drafted was that it should only apply to premises licensed for the consumption of liquor on the premises. If we cannot do it here, it should be made perfectly clear in another place that this does only apply to these places. I can understand why the hon. Member opposite hangs so much on this Clause when we remember the number of Amendments he moved in Committee, which the Minister refused and which he then withdrew. At last he has got one that stands a chance of getting into the Bill to repay him for the labour that he spent with so much futility that on one occasion he had to vote against his own Amendment. I hope the Minister will put this right, because it would be quite wrong to give the landlord of a house this power where for reasons not connected with the bad conduct of the tenant the licence had been refused.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I think the position is entirely unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman thinks his duty to the House is discharged if he divests himself of entire responsibility with regard to this Amendment and thrusts it on his friend who support it from the benches behind, and he thinks his duty is entirely discharged if he can thrust the responsibility upon the brewers and licensed victuallers outside. He has not been able to explain the Amendment drawn up on his behalf. The least he could have done would have been to have made himself acquainted with the views embodied in this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Measure made this a Government Amendment by accepting it from his friends and, if he is responsible
for it, he ought to be able to explain it to us. He ought not to be satisfied with it because it came from the brewers and licensed victuallers. The Bill is the Minister's Bill and it is his duty to the public and the House that he should be able to inform the public and the House of the sense of the Clause. The hon. Member said that the latter part did not cover the case of redundancy and an hon. Member sitting below him, and who has wakened up, interrupted my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. HOHLER: It is inaccurate to say that I was asleep.

Dr. CHAPPLE: The hon. and learned Member showed no appreciation of the point I was making. I thought he was oblivious. He interrupted and said that the word was required. I have before me the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, Section 20 of which says that "where the compensation authority refuses renewal of the old licence," and so on. It is obvious that this covers a refusal for redundancy, and the hon. Member in moving the Amendment has either not been frank, or has not been lucid. Is the Minister satisfied with the treatment of this Amendment?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I am concerned about the words at the end of this Amendment. I have had strong recommendations made to me from holders of licences, who ask for an assurance that they are safeguarded in this matter. When the Bill was in Committee upstairs Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 was deleted from the Bill, the effect of which was that licensed premises were put back under control again and, that being so, the moving of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member creates rather great suspicion in my mind—having regard to the words of the last two lines—that there is some endeavour to try and get behind the fact that the Committeee put licensed premises back under control in the interests of the tenants. The point was put fairly that these words might be easily construed to mean that if the licensing justices decided for any reason other than offences by the licencees not to renew licences, this would then prevent the tenants of licensed premises from having and redress under the Act for being turned out. If that is the intention of the parties to this Amendment, then I think that the
House ought to divide against the whole Amendment if we cannot move to delete these words. What I complain about is that while a Minister may have some ground for taking a somewhat detached view of the Amendment of a back bench Member, it is different when that Amendment is accepted, and there is grave doubt about the legal effect upon a large number of deserving people. We ought to have a very clear interpretation from the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, but he is apparently relying upon some information given to him by somebody outside the House. We ought to have the view of the Minister of Health, or the learned Solicitor-General, as to the actual effect of the acceptance by the Minister of this Amendment and what would be the effect of these words in the Bill, which is a Government Bill, and for which, if the Amendment is inserted, the Government will take full responsibility. Unless I can be satisfied, unless the words I have referred to are not going to be a deliberate attempt to take licensed premises out of the control, and unless licences are not to be cut down by men being turned out without redress, then, I think, we ought to divide the House and vote against the whole Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to protest against what is now taking place in this House. I always like to give credit where credit is due, but listening to this Debate shows quite clearly to me that those who sit on the Government Benches are quite prepared to use all prejudice in favour of brewers, and believe in their minds that the brewer is to have a special licence. So far as this Bill is concerned the brewer, as compared with the ordinary house owner, is to have a special power given because he is the proprietor of licensed houses; he is to be given the power of treating the man who is running one of his houses as some one who can be dispossessed at any time when it suits the convenience of the brewer. If the House were to deal fairly with those who are tenants, whether it be in connection with licensed premises or ordinary dwelling-houses, they ought to impart a sense of justice which would fall equally upon the cases I have mentioned. It is quite clear, however, that in all cases in this House, wherever there is to be a line drawn between the brewing interests and the common decent interests
—the common people—you always find the Government coming down heavily on the side of the brewing interest—it may be the brewing interest which provides money.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is travelling wide of the very narrow scope of the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: In discussing this it is necessary to try to get down to the truth, and when you happen to get near the kind of truth that is being hidden, there is always a crying out when the curtain is being torn from the skeleton behind it. It is all very well for Members who can go to sleep.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member will have to defer these remarks to the Third Reading. They are hardly in order now.

Mr. HARDIE: I think I am perfectly in order, with all due deference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Let Mr. Deputy-Speaker decide. I am quite willing to obey his ruling, not yours. In dealing with licences we are bound to deal with the factors that control them. The chief factor is the brewing trade.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The application of this Clause is not to the brewers but to the Licensing Authority, that is, the Justices who are the Licensing Authority. It is not an exercise of option by the brewers.

Mr. HARDIE: But is it not a fact that the whole thing depends upon whether the licensee can be turned out or not.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Nobody can turn out a licensee, but for some reason or other the Licensing Authority refuses him the licence. Therefore the question of the brewer cannot come in

Mr. HARDIE: I am glad to have that explanation. It is something the Minister in charge of the Bill did not explain. I will conclude by saying this. It is not nice to read in Parliamentary reports and in the morning papers that this great power of beer has come up in Parliament.

Captain BERKELEY: I only wish to make a very brief intervention in order to put a suggestion which may be of help to the House in the doubt that exists. The
hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) has put one case in which this may work hardship in the case of redundancy. Another hon. Member put a case coming under the Scottish Benefice Act where local veto operates, and in such a case there may be opportunity for hardship being worked. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment gave us to understand that these words were only introduced at the end of the proposed Amendment for the purpose of covering any possibility of error and in order to round off the Clause. Would he not be prepared to make it plain by allowing the last line to read
or renewal of the licence for any such reason has been refused.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not possible to do that on the Amendment now moved. It would have to be done elsewhere.

Captain BERKELEY: If the Minister in charge of the Bill would take such steps to get such words introduced in another place to make the Amendment plain I am sure the House would not wish to press it to a Division.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We are in this position. The Clause as drafted was agreed to by a body representing the licensed victuallers of the country. If this is their view, I do not see why other people should be more particular about their interests than they are themselves. I will, however, be perfectly ready to hear any representations which the licensed victuallers, either nationally or locally, may wish to make to me upon the Amendment in regard to the last words, to which some exception has been taken, and I will endeavour to find further agreement in order to make the words perfectly clear so that everybody may understand what it is they are in for.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, f), substituted paragraph (iv), to leave out the words "of his children" ["for any of his children"], and to insert instead thereof the words
son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age.
I only want to explain that these words are included in a preceding Clause, and I understand that the Minister may be willing to accept these words.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, f), substituted paragraph (iv), after the word "and" ["and where the landlord"], to insert the words "in any case."
This is merely a drafting Amendment. It does not alter the sense.

Mr. PRINGLE: I think this Clause reads so strangely that we ought to find out what it means, even with the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposes. In Clause 3, in the new paragraph (iv), which is substituted for paragraph four in the principal Act, it says:
Where the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any of his children, and"—
—then the words "in any case" come in—
where the landlord or the husband or the husband or wife of the landlord did not become the landlord before the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, the Court is satisfied that greater hardship would be caused by refusing to grant an Order.
What is the effect of the introduction of the words "and in any case" there? As it stands at present, it is very obscure, and before it goes to another place the right hon. Gentleman should make it clearer. There is some risk of a difficult interpretation.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I tried to put in other words to make it clearer. If the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) will imagine after the word "and" those in a bracket, and after "nineteen hundred and twenty-two" those in another bracket, that will perhaps make the sense of the Clause clearer. In the Act there are a number of paragraphs each of which begins with the word "Where." The first "Where" in this paragraph (iv) in the Bill is parallel with the "Where" in the other paragraph preceding. But the second "Where" is making a different kind of exception, and it is provided that "in any case" where a landlord did not
before the 30th June—in such case he has to prove greater hardship to himself than to the tenant before he can get the Order.

Mr. PRINGLE: Would it not be better as in the original Act in paragraph (iv)? If that were done, it would cover the case.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to send me in writing the suggestion he has made, I should be glad to consider it with a view to putting it into the appropriate phraseology.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Supposing you were to substitute the word "or" for the word "and," would that not give the meaning in plain language? I should like to know if the last paragraph covers the first paragraph. It is certainly most abstruse. In Committee the Minister told us he would make it clear on Report stage. I must confess that to many Members of the House confusion is worse confounded.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps it would assist if the words "in the case of" were inserted.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think perhaps that would do.

Mr. PRINGLE: Will that be quite right even then, because if you insert "and" the Court would have to be satisfied in both cases, whereas, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman, the Court has only to be satisfied in a single case. I would suggest that the best thing is to have "or" instead of "and" before "where," and insert "and" before "Court."

Mr. FOOT: The insertion of the word "or" would give two grounds where there was only one ground. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the three words could not be dispensed with. When he asks hon. Members behind me to exercise imagination, he will perhaps remember that the Judges do not exercise imagination, but take the words as they are.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. It certainly has no value because it does not make the Clause clearer than it was before. With regard to the suggestion
of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), I would like to think it over and if necessary I will have an Amendment inserted in another place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert a new Sub-section—
(2) Where, under the provisions of this or the principal Act, the Court makes an order for the possession of any dwelling-house which does not involve the provision of alternative accommodation, the Court shall give the tenant not less than three months' notice to quit from the date of making the Order.
I understand that this Amendment would come in more properly as an Amendment at this place. I hope the Minister will give what consideration he is able to give it, for it did not get the consideration it deserved in Committee. It is based on the findings of the Onslow Committee. We have had this Committee quoted to us on many occasions upstairs when the Minister was anxious to defend a particular Section of the Act. The application of this Amendment would be very limited, but at the same time I submit, on the findings of the Onslow Committee, it is very important. On page 16 of their Report they suggest that, in the case of an owner-occupier, houses should be given possession of without alternative accommodation, but that in certain circumstances there should be given three months' notice. I shall briefly read their recommendation:
We accordingly recommend:
(1) That in the case of a person who has become the owner of a house prior to 31st December, 1921, and who desires possession for his own occupation or for the occupation of his children, he shall be entitled to possession without any conditions as to alternative accommodation, provided that he has given his tenant at least three months' notice to quit.
The force of this Amendment is to give effect to that recommendation of the Onslow Committee, that there shall be given to the tenant in such cases where no alternative accommodation is provided and he has to be turned out, at least three months' notice. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman suggested that it was already provided for in the Act because it may postpone possession until such date as the Court thinks fit. I submit that that protection was well known to the Onslow Committee, was based on the working of this particular
Act and this particular Section, and the Committee found, notwithstanding the provision in the 1920 Act and the protection which the Minister said was adequate, that this protection was not adequate. There is therefore good ground for the Amendment I propose.
2.0 A.M.
The Minister further said there might be cases of ex-service tenants where the employer required the house immediately. That, I submit, was in the minds of the Onslow Committee when they made their recommendation. There is also the case of the man where the employer requires the house for an employé. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the tenant should at any rate have three months in which to find other accommodation which the landlord himself or the Court are not finding. That is a point of some substance, and my attention has been drawn to it not by an aggrieved tenant, but a landlord with considerable experience in the workings of the Act and this particular provision. Knowing the difficulties of the Act and that there would be real hardship to a tenant turned out by order of the Court, he felt that such a tenant should not be turned out unless there was a period of three months in which to find something else. It is right that the House should protect the dispossessed tenant and still leave discretion to the Court if necessary to give three months' notice. It is desirable that this House should lay down some guidance to the Courts. We have had criticisms to-night of the working of these Acts and we have heard the criticisms of Judges who have had to carry it out suggesting that Parliament should say more directly what it is they intend should be carried out. I suggest that in these cases instead of leaving a wide discretion to the Court there should be a recommendation to the Court. I recommend three months, because it is a direct recommendation of the Onslow Committee.

Mr. McENTEE: I beg to second the Amendment.
There is a similar Amendment in my name, which I presume has been passed over in favour of this one. It ought to be accepted, because great hardship may be caused if it is not. In the circumstances of the present time and of the immediate future, three months' notice is not unreasonable, and I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is quite true that this proposal was made in Committee. I think the Amendment stood in the name of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), but he was not able to be present on that occasion to make the speech he wished to make. He has evidently been studying the records of the Committee, for he has made use of my arguments, so that it is not necessary for me to deal with it at length. At present the Court has power to suspend execution at their discretion until the tenant has had time to get accommodation elsewhere. This would

be very mischievous, because it would do away with and cancel out paragraph (1) of Sub-section (5) of the original Act, and that is that where a tenant is no longer in the employment of a landlord, it is not reasonable that he should be allowed to remain three months in occupation of the house, preventing anyone coming there, so that the work of a farm could not be carried out unless there was a man living there.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 162.

Division No. 279.]
AYES.
[2.5 a.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hayday, Arthur
Richards, R.


Bonwick, A.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Briant, Frank
Herriotts, J.
Ritson, J.


Broad, F. A.
Hill, A.
Rose, Frank H.


Burgess, S.
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. A.


Chapple, W. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scrymgeour, E.


Darbishire, C. W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Sitch, Charles H.


Ede, James Chuter
Jones, T. I. Mandy (Pontypridd)
Sullivan, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Leach, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Foot, Isaac
Lunn, William
Welsh, J. C.


Gosling, Harry
McLaren, Andrew
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Whiteley, W.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mosley, Oswald
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Phillipps, Vivian
Mr. Trevelyan Thomson and Mr. McEntee.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Clarry, Reginald George
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)


Apsley, Lord
Clayton, G. C.
Goff, Sir R. Park


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Halstead, Major D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cope, Major William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barnston, Major Harry
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Harrison, F. C.


Becker, Harry
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harvey, Major S. E.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Betterton, Henry B.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hopkins, John W. W.


Blundell, F. N.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Houfton, John Plowright


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Ellis, R. G.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Brass, Captain W.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Jephcott, A. R.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Falcon, Captain Michael
King, Capt. Henry Douglas


Bruford, R.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Flanagan, W. H.
Lamb, J. Q.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Button, H. S.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lort-Williams, J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Furness, G. J.
Lougher, L.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Garland, C. S.
Lumley, L. R.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Gates, Percy
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Manville, Edward
Raine, W.
Stanley, Lord


Margesson, H. D. R.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Remer, J. R.
Sykes, Major.-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Nall, Major Joseph
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Tubbs, S. W.


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wallace, Captain E.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Russell, William (Bolton)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Paget, T. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wells, S. R.


Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Pease, William Edwin
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Sandon, Lord
Winterton, Earl


Penny, Frederick George
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wise, Frederick


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Shepperson, E. W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Shipwright, Captain D.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Pielou, D. P.
Singleton, J. E.



Pilditch, Sir Philip
Skelton, A. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Privett, F. J.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


Question put, and agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (2, b), leave out the word "actual" ["into actual possession."]—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
I am sorry to hear that there has been some misunderstanding as to the particular stage we were going to reach to-night. All of us, I think, clearly understood that we had to get the Third Reading of the Bill to-morrow night. I had intended to go as far as Clause 9, so as to divide up the time fairly evenly between the two nights, but I should not like to take advantage, even unwittingly, of any misunderstanding which was perfectly bona-fide on the part of anyone. If the House desires that we should do so, we will adjourn now on the understanding that we are going to have the Third Reading to-morrow night.

HON. MEMBERS: Go on!

Captain W. BENN: Many of us would be glad to have a rest now. We consider it is very inadvisable to take these intricate matters in the middle of the night, but we cannot consent to the statement that there was an understanding the Government were to be given the Third Reading of this Bill to-morrow night. It seems to me absolutely impossible.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBTS].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order 71A.—(King's Recommendation, signified.)

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans."—[Captain Douglas King.]

Captain BENN: May I ask what Minister is in charge of this Resolution? Is it not the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whose name is against this, and should he not have come down to move this Motion? I recognise the ability and courtesy of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has moved it, but when a Motion is specially made, it is not proper that the Financial Secretary should consider it unnecessary to come down. That should certainly impel any ordinary Member to make a protest.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven, of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes after Two o'Clock a.m.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C: Brigadier-General Clifton Brown.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Herbert Spencer; and had appointed in substitution (during the consideration of the Performing Animals Bill): Mr. Trevelyan Thomson.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Buchanan; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. William Graham.

Reports to lie upon the Table.